2008 PLP 32 (YLR)

GULZAR AHMED, J.

This matter was taken up in the morning when it was heard at length. Mr. Ali Azam counsel for defendant No.1 was present and requested that Mr. Manzoor Ahmed, Advocate may be heard and matter may be kept aside as he was stated' to be busy before another Bench. The matter was kept aside and was taken up again when Mr. Manzoor Ahmed, Advocate was heard. The counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the plaintiffs are the tenants of the premises in question and are depositing the rent in Miscellaneous Rent Case jointly in the name of defendants Nos. 1 and

2. The defendant No.2 claims ownership of property while defendant No.1's case is that the defendant No.2 is not the owner inasmuch as there is no subsisting lease in favour of defendant No.2. Mr. K.A. Wahab, Advocate for defendant No.2 was present in the morning has pointed out that through judgment dated 17-9-1997 passed by IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Central Karachi in Suit No.111/1997 (old Suit.No.372/1993) Izat Khan and others v. Ramzan Khan and others, Annexure D-9 to written statement of defendant No.2, the defendant No.2 has been held to be the owner of subject property and that the said 'judgment is holding field as it has not been set aside. He further stated that a learned Single Judge of this Court has passed judgment dated 9-2-2005 in Suit No.03 of 1991 Annexure "A" to the plaint, whereby ownership of defendant No.2 has not been accepted and that the defendant No.2 has filed High Court Appeal No.66 of 2005, wherein order dated 6-5-2005 has been passed Annexure D-15 to the written statement of defendant No.2 whereby the operation of impugned judgment has been suspended. Mr. Manzoor Ahmed, counsel for defendant No.1 has contended that property in question is an amenity plot, rather a round about in between roads and is not capable being sold or leased and that defendant No.2's claim of ownership is altogether incorrect. He stated that the occupation of plaintiff is illegal and the defendant No. 1 is going to take steps in accordance with law. It may be noted that Mr. K.A. Wahab counsel for defendant No.2 has stated before the Court on 7-12-2005 that the defendant No.2 is not going to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff but will take action in accordance with law. Similar statement was reiterated by him today in Court also the intervener's counsel has stated that in view of the statement made by both Mr. Manzoor Ahmed as well as Mr. K.A. Wahab, the purpose of intervener's approaching the Court stands satisfied. The counsel for the plaintiff also stated that in view of statement made by Mr. Manzoor Ahmed as well as Mr. K.A. Wahab, the purpose of filing of the suit has been achieved and that the suit is not pressed by him. The suit is therefore, dismissed as not pressed along with all pending applications. H.B.T./G-28/K Suit dismissed.