1994 PLP 647 (MLD)
SHAMSUDDIN and 2 others — Petitioners Versus KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY
| Citation | 1994 PLP 647 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHAMSUDDIN and 2 others — Petitioners Versus KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY |
| Primary Law | Co-owner |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 647 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Co-owner as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 647 (MLD)?
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: 1994 PLP 647 (MLD) (SHAMSUDDIN and 2 others — Petitioners Versus KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ashraf Bhatti for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Iqbal Memon for Respondents.
- Mr. Khalid Athar, Advocate, is also present on Court notice for Imtiazuddin, who claims entitlement for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th floor spaces in the disputed property. There appears to have been continued litigation in respect of the disputed property. At an earlier date in relation to Suit No.1467 of 1977 another civil revision application viz. 235 of 1988 was brought to this Court and disposed of by me through an order dated 17-1-1991.
Headnotes / Summary
Dispute relating to property in question between co-owners
Parties agreed that their dispute was effectively resolved through a settlement arrived at between contestants before Chief Controller of Buildings
Such settlement was taken on record
In spite of consensus between parties that dispute could still be resolved in terms of agreement, they expressed doubt that some of those terms might be unworkable in that guarantee amount had not been disclosed therein
Terms relating to provisions of guarantee were substituted with the consensus of parties and mode for resolving the points of controversy was spelt out
Revision as also suit from which revision had arisen, were disposed of in terms of agreement between the parties
Judgment & Decree
Mr. Khalid Athar, Advocate, is also present on Court notice for Imtiazuddin, who claims entitlement for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th floor spaces in the disputed property. There appears to have been continued litigation in respect of the disputed property. At an earlier date in relation to Suit No.1467 of 1977 another civil revision application viz. 235 of 1988 was brought to this Court and disposed of by me through an order dated 17-1-1991. Meanwhile, the respondents apparently issued a notice of demolition to the applicants who are owners/occupants of the entire ground-floor tenements and that in turn occasioned institution of Suit No.380 of 1989 at the instance of the applicants. In that civil suit the learned Civil Judge was moved for passing a decree in terms of the order, dated 17-1-1991 in RA. No.235 of 1988 above referred. This the learned Judge declined to do giving rise to the present revision application. For the purpose of a comprehensive disposal of the matter I issued pre-admission notices to the respondents as well as the other interested party in these proceedings namely Imtiazuddin and in response Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Memon and Mr. Khalid Athar have put in appearance for such persons. Having examined the matter all the learned counsel agree that the dispute was effectively resolved through a settlement dated 16-9-1993 arrived at between the contestants before the Chief Controller of Buildings. Such' a settlement is taken on record and its terms are reproduced below:-- "(1) All co-owners of the said building have no objection if the building plan submitted by Mr. Imtiazuddin is approved by the K.B.CA. (2) To acknowledge above resolution, all co-owners have signed before the Chief Controller of Buildings to give their sole consent that they have no objection in signing the submission plan. (3) It was also resolved that Mr. Imtiazuddin will lay the foundation sustaining the building load G + 4 floors within a period of 3 months. The construction shall be, to the cement of R.C.C. framework with one slab. In case, if construction is not completed within specified time, Mr. Imtiazuddin shall provide a Bank guarantee and in case of default the amount from Bank guarantee will be utilized to complete the left over work. The following occupants attended the meeting: (1) Mr. Shamsuddin., (2) Mr. Muhammad Usman. (3) Mr. Noor Muhammad Khan. (4) Mr. Imtiazuddin. This is being issued on request of occupants." In spite of consensus between learned counsel that the dispute can still be resolved in terms reproduced hereinabove the learned counsel also appreciate that some of those terms may be unworkable in that the guarantee amount has not been disclosed etc. Accordingly and in substitution of the term relating to the provision of guarantee it is agreed that the referred Imtiazuddin would deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000 in lieu of the guarantee with the Official Assignee within a period of two months and correspondingly obtain necessary approvals from the K.B.CA. etc. for raising the constructions. Once all this is done in a further one month's time the Official Assignee would obtain possession from the applicants and hand over the site to Imtiazuddin who, within the next fortnight, would start raising construction on the property the constructions being of the type agreed between the parties, as quoted above. For raising the constructions the amount lying with the Official Assignee will be utilized under the Official Assignee's own supervision to the extent of Rs.1,00,000 and the balance would be provided by Imtiazuddin himself. On the ground floor being completed with the added funds of Imtiazuddin the same would be handed over to the applicants and with that would also be released to Imtiazuddin the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000 lying with the Official Assignee as security to be utilized for completion of the ground, floor in case of any delay or default on the part of the referred Imtiazuddin. It will be the choice of Imtiazuddin to construct or not to construct the four floors on top of the ground floor above referred and likewise it will also be his choice as to when and how to construct the same. In these terms and by consent this revision application as well as the suit from which it arises stand disposed of but with no orders as to costs. AA./S-1025/K Order accordingly.