2006 PLP 352 (CLC)
ABDUL RAUF — Petitioner Versus MEHRAN HEALTH AND WELFARE CENTRE through General Secretary and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 352 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL RAUF — Petitioner Versus MEHRAN HEALTH AND WELFARE CENTRE through General Secretary and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 352 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 352 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 352 (CLC) (ABDUL RAUF — Petitioner Versus MEHRAN HEALTH AND WELFARE CENTRE through General Secretary and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Yasin Azad for Petitioner.
- Surayya Rahim for Respondent No.1.
- Manzoor Ahmad along with Syed Shariq Ilyas, Project Director for Respondent No.2.
- Shahid Jamiluddin Khan along with Muhammad Sami, Deputy Controller of Building for Respondent No.3.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 105
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Petitioner had called in question fresh lease executed in favour of respondent in a civil suit on the original side of High Court which was still pending
Questions were whether said lease was valid and was sub judice in that suit
Present petition had not been pursued with diligence and events appeared to have overtaken the reliefs claimed
Constitutional petition was dismissed as infructuous with clarification that Building Control Authority would be under obligation to take appropriate action, if any violation of approved plan was brought to its notice
Said observation, however, would not affect questions raised in the suit pending adjudication.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner had called in question the construction of commercial shops on a plot leased out to the respondent No.1 for amenity purposes. Obviously such construction at the relevant time was illegal as has been acknowledged by the respondents Nos.2 and
3. However, it appears that part of the amenity plot was converted into one for commercial purposes and according to the respondent No.1, a new building plan was also approved by the respondent No.3. Curiously though a covering letter supposed to contain a copy of the approved plan dated 3-3-1999 appears to be available in the record of the respondent No.2, no such record seems to be available with the respondent Na.3. We must record our grave concern over the manner in which records are maintained by public bodies. Be that as it may we are informed that the petitioner has called in question the fresh lease executed by the respondent No.3(?) in favour of the respondent No.1 in a civil suit on the original side of this Court A which is still pending. The questions whether such lease was valid is subjudiced in that suit. It may also be observed that this petition has not been pursued with due diligence and events appear to have overtaken the reliefs claimed. For the foregoing reasons we have no option but to dismiss this petition as infructuous. It is, however, clarified that the respondent No.3 will under obligation to take appropriate action, if any violation of the approved plan is brought to its notice. It is also clarified that the observation made herein will not affect the questions raised in the suit. H.B.T./A-6/K????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.