1998 PLP 956 (CLC)

WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑‑‑Briefly put, the case of the appellant/ plaintiff has been that he applied for the allocation of a shop premises in the project of the respondents on the basis of an advertisement and a duly supplied brochure, specifying the various features of the building project in question. The quoted price of the shop was Rs. 940,0.00 out of which, after acceptance of the appellant's offer, a fourth was paid. Once, in response to the advertised invitation to offer, the proposal of the appellant‑plaintiff was made and accepted, the terms, in the advertisement and follow up brochure, patently, crystallised in a contract. These are the implications of the interpretation clause in section 2 of the Contract Act, 1872. Contractual obligations having been incurred thus, speaking broadly, no deviation from the stipulations, except by mutual consent or with intendment to benefit the members of the public, committing themselves in response to the invitation or on account of a reprieve for general good,' adjudicated upon by a competent Court or authority, could be permitted. One such authority, spoken of here, may be the K.B.C.A., constituted under the Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979. The learned Single Judge, through the order under appeal, while refusing the interim injunction to the plaintiff, in restraint of further constructions upon the alleged violation of the contractual terms, has, however, dilated upon an admission on the part of the project managers, in their written statement, to the effect that they had not deviated from the original concepts of the plan nor from their avowals, made public as above. In response to the notice under Order 43, Rule 3, C.P.C., the respondents‑defendants have also been represented here before us. Mr. Abdul Muqatadar Khan, appearing for the builder‑respondents, has categorically reiterated that, in the first place, no deviations have been made and, in the second, the slight alterations, such as reservations of two parking floors, instead of one, can only be to the advantage of the members of public, who chose to duly come ~ up with their offers in response to the general invitation. With this we agree. More specifically, it has also been denied by Mr. Abdul Muqatadar Khan that the offices proposed in the upper storeys of the building have been converted into shops by the managers of the project and, according to him, the original proposal, as to office accommodation, has been maintained. In the circumstances, we would record the above statement as well as the position taken before the learned single Judge; from whose order the appellant‑plaintiff has appealed, as undertakings made to the Court. Any deviation or transgression thereof would be actionable as if an order of injunction of the Court had been contravened. Disposed of in the terms but with no order as to costs. A.A./S‑133/K Order accordingly