1980 PLP 626 (CLC)

On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed. (1) Were the defendants not entitled to, recover from the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 2,82,053.82 as wafer charges between 1st July 1962 and 31st December 1970? (2) Are the defendants liable to refund the amount of Rs. 2.82,053.82 to the plaintiffs? (3) Are the plaintiffs estopped from claiming the amount in suit? (4) To what relief, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled? No evidence was led by the parties. I have heard Mr. S. Jamil Alam, Deputy Attorney-General for the plain, tiffs and Mr. Sabir Hussain Qazilbash Advocate on behalf of the defendants. My decision on the issues framed in the suit is as follows;

Issue No. 3 So far as issue No. 3 is concerned it is not pressed by Mr. Sabir Hussain Qazilbash. Even otherwise, the principle of estoppel is not attracted to the facts of this case. Issues Nos. 1 and 2

Now, I consider issues Nos. 1 and

2. The Deputy Attorney-General has relied on the judge of a Division Bench of this Court, consisting of Muhammad Halim, and Agha Imdadally, JJ delivered in Petitions Nos. 29, 81, 84 and 256 of 1971 on 30-4-1972, and reported as Muniruddin Kidwani and 2 other v. Karachi Development Authority (P L D 1972 Kar. 521) wherein demand, made by the Karachi Development Authority on account of water charges from tire residents of Nazimabad were held to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect on the' ground that tic Karachi Development Authority had no jurisdiction to demand the same. Since this is a Division Bench decision I am bound by it. Mr. Sabir Hussain Qazilbash has not been able to distinguish this case either on facts or on law. In fact Sabir Husain Qazilbash Advocate admitted before me that now the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation is recovering the charges from the residents of Nazimabad, Karachi. I, therefore, hold that the defendants were not entitled to recover the water charges from the plaintiffs and are therefore liable to refund to them the amount recovered from them. Accordingly, both the issues are decided against the defendants. Issue No. 4 In view of the above finding I am of the view that the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for Rs. 2,02,053.82, the amount claimed in the suit, accordingly. I pass a decree for the same with costs. As regards the claim for interest pendente lite I am of the opinion that tinder the circumstances of this case it should not be awarded. As for future if the defendants pay the decretal amount within one month, from the date hereof no interest will be payable by them, otherwise, they will be liable to pay interest at 6 per cent. per annum from the date of the decree till payment. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.