P LD 1994 Lahore 1 (PLP)

A plot, measuring 6 Marlas, situate at Murree, was purchased on 19‑4‑74 by Syed Fazal Abbas Haider, who got a building plan sanctioned from the Municipal Committee. He is respondent No.4 in the present writ petition, filed by Rai Ahmad Nawaz and Basharat Shah who have prayed that the plan be declared to have been sanctioned without lawful authority and construction of the house, in accordance therewith, being carried out by the owner of the plot, be stopped.

2. It is submitted by the petitioners that a plot for construction of a house in the area in question has not to be less than one Kanal, building has to be constructed in accordance with certain specifications, taking due care for an independent drainage, and plantation has to be kept intact. As many as 8 trees, standing on the site, however, will have to be cut down by the owner of the plot for undertaking construction on his plot. This, according to the petitioners, would amount to clear‑cut violation of the Building By‑laws. The petitioners plead to have unsuccessfully approached the Resident Magistrate, Murree for preventing respondent No.4 from carrying on the construction. They have however not stated as to how do they come in the picture, and on what score and in what manner would their rights and interests, if any, be prejudiced,‑by reason of the construction proposed to be made by respondent No.4.

3. In any case, and even if the petitioners have a cause of action against the person arrayed as respondent No.4 in the writ petition, certain important facts pointed out above will have to be proved by them by leading evidence. For instance it will have basically to be shown that the plot is situate within the 'Terris Area' or the `Station Area' and whether‑ the By‑laws extend to the said area and if there would occur any infringement of the By‑laws, by reason of. the construction in question. These aspects of the matter can better be examined in the proceedings of a civil suit. Again, when any other forum or remedy is available, the remedy of writ petition has not to be resorted to. I therefore feel that the better and in fact the only course available to the petitioners would be institution of a civil suit. Merely because that is not a speedy remedy would not justify filing of a writ petition. On filing the civil suit, the petitioners may ask for issuance of an ad interim injunction order; and if they are able to satisfy the Civil Court, the interim relief would readily be conceded to them; and that would serve the purpose, so far as requirement of an immediate relief or an imminent remedy is concerned.

4. Writ petition is not competent and is hereby dismissed in limine. AA/A‑469/L Petition dismissed.