1994 CLC 1918

KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus SHABBIR AHMED

Citation1994 CLC 1918

CourtSindh High Court

Case No.High Court Appeal No. 163 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1098 of 1992

Date1993-02-11

ResultAppeal and application dismissed

ORDER

WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J‑‑‑ This is an application under Order 32, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code and is dismissed having become infructutous at this stage.

2. Having heard the learned counsel several facts have menifested themselves. It is an admitted position that the partnership firm of which the respondents were partners was on 22‑7‑1959 allotted Plot No. LC‑38 in the_ Landhi Industrial Area but because the Karachi Development Authority was unable to effectuate its allotment, an alternative plot in the same area namely, H‑17 Was allotted on 15‑8‑1960. Evidently the last‑mentioned plot. was under encroachment and the Karachi Development Authority again failed to deliver possession at any point of time to the firm or its partners. This last mentioned plot, therefore, was the subject‑matter of a preliminary decree for dissolution passed by this Court on‑14‑2‑1966. Since then, over a period of 27 years or so, several unsuccessful efforts have been made to obtain possession of Plot No. H‑17 through the agency of this Court on the original side but with no success. Ultimately the learned Single Judge, as the impugned order dated 4‑11‑1992 would indicate, was driven to record evidence to find out whether any alternative plot was available with the Karachi Development Authority so that the Karachi Development could provide it in lieu of Plot No. H‑17 or on its failure that plot could be made available through the process of Court. Clearly, efforts were made in evidence from the side of the Karachi Development Authority to side‑track the issue, yet some palpable admissions were made, on the basis of which the learned Single Judge found that another plot namely LX‑5 in the same industrial area was available and that such being originally an industrial plot was wrongly converted into industrial‑commercial plot. This plot, according to the learned Single Judge, should be provided in Lieu to the respondent. He has so found. The learned Single Judge has also appointed a Commissioner to have the transfer of such plot processed. The order is eminently just. We see no reason to interfere. Appeal dismissed.

3. This application has become infructuous and is dismissed.

H.B.T./K‑328/K Appeal and application dismissed.