2003 PLP 987 (CLC)
NOOR MUHAMMAD and others — Petitioners Versus KARACHI BUILDINGS CONTROL AUTHORITY, K.M.C. through Chief Controller, Karachi and 6 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 987 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NOOR MUHAMMAD and others — Petitioners Versus KARACHI BUILDINGS CONTROL AUTHORITY, K.M.C. through Chief Controller, Karachi and 6 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 987 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 987 (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: 2003 PLP 987 (CLC) (NOOR MUHAMMAD and others — Petitioners Versus KARACHI BUILDINGS CONTROL AUTHORITY, K.M.C. through Chief Controller, Karachi and 6 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Saalim Salam Ansari for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Arts. 204 & 199
Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976); Ss.3 & 4
Withdrawal of Constitutional petition by petitioner under bona fide belief that respondent was alive to and interested in performing its duty
Such belief had been caused by a false statement
High Court allowed petitioners' application recalled order of withdrawal for decision of case on merits and directed contemnor to show cause for making deliberately a false statement in parawise comments.
Judgment & Decree
Saalim Salam Ansari for Petitioners. Rasheeduddin Ahmed for. Respondent No.
1. Suleman Habibullah A.A.-G. Mr. Saalim Salam Ansari learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order dated 7-3-1994 was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation inasmuch as the respondent No.l in their parawise comments had clearly stated that they were helpless in performing their statutory duty on the ground that they have been restrained from demolishing the premises by interim order passed by VI Court of Senior Civil Judge, Karachi South, in Suit No.1112 of 1993. Therefore since it was stated in Court that the injunction had since been vacated the petitioner in good faith believed that the respondent No. l would not perform its duty ordained -by law and therefore did not press the petition. However, subsequently the petitioner came to know that the interim injunction had been vacated almost three months prior to the date of hearing in this Court and the contentions in the written statement to the effect that "the respondent No.1 is helpless due to status quo order" was false and fraudulent. In all fairness we are of the view that the petitioner might have withdrawn the petition under the bona fide belief that the respondent No.l was alive to and interested in performing its duty, and such belief was caused, by a false statement, the, order dated 7-3-1994 needs to be recalled and the case be decided on merits. This application is accordingly allowed.
2. The alleged contemnor is required to appear in person on the nest date of hearing and show cause why action under the Contempt of Court Act should not be taken against him for making deliberately false statement in the parawise comments dated 7-3-1994 filed before this Court. To come up on 26-2-2003