SADIA EDUCATION SOCIETY Versus PAKISTAN

ORDER

1. SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, J‑‑‑ This appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 2‑12‑1992 passed in Suit No. 719/92 whereby he dismissed the application of the applicant moved for injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellants filed Suit No. 719/92 for declaration and injunction against the respondents as they are running a School at Plot No.X‑30/11, 19th Street, Phase‑I, Defence Housing Authority, Karachi. It is the case of the appellants that they were granted 99 years lease of the plot on which they raised construction and started running a school known as Model Public School. Respondents threatened to close this school. Appellants, therefore, filed Suit No. 362/1989 and the respondents agreed to provide accommodation for the plaintiff/appellant for a school at reasonable rate and, therefore, the matter was compromised on 15‑5‑1989 and the suit was disposed of accordingly.

3. According to the appellant the respondents did not act in accordance with the consent order and they again threatened to close down the school. They offered a plot far away from the appellant's school at an exorbitant rate of Rs.1,500 per sq. yard.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. According to the learned Single Judge the application moved before him related to a matter forming part of the earlier suit which was disposed of by order dated 15‑5‑1989. The application was, therefore, dismissed. A perusal of the order and the material available on the record indicates that this application relates to the matter forming part of the earlier suit which has already been disposed of by a consent order. As a result, the appellant had been offered a plot by the Authority. It appears that it was not accepted on the ground that the price was too high. Another option was also given to pass over the students in charge of the appellant society for being accommodated in the educational institutions run by the latter. Before this Court, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2.and 3 and Brig. (Retd.) Muhammad Ali, Director Education, Defence Housing Authority have given an undertaking as under:‑‑

6. "I, Brigadier (Retd.) Muhammad Ali, Director Education, Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority Karachi do hereby furnish the undertaking as under:‑‑

(1) That I am the Director Education of the Defence Housing Authority, Karachi and thus fully conversant with facts of the case.

(2) That all the affected students duly admitted in Sadiq Education School both boys and girls will be swapped over to Defence Housing Authority Schools and allowed admission in Classes‑I to 10th during Winter Vacation within a fortnight, as required under Government Rules on production of school leaving certificate.

(3) That all the affected duly admitted students will be adjusted in Defence Housing Authority Schools and their studies will not suffer on account of syllabus as they will continue to study according to their existing syllabus.

(4) That the students of 9th and 10th classes will be so adjusted/admitted in forthcoming examination is not affected adversely.

(5) That the students will be absorbed in the Schools located at short distance as under:‑‑

(a) Dukhtaran‑e‑Awam School, Phase‑1, for Girls (Duly Registered with

7. Karachi Board of Secondary Education).

(b) Defence Housing Authority Model High School, for boys and girls,

8. Kh‑e‑Hilal, Phase‑VII, (Duly Registered with Karachi Board of Secondary Education).

(c) Tooba Primary School, Phase‑I, for boys and girls.

(d) Tooba Secondary School for boys."

9. In view of the fact, that for same subject‑matter earlier suit has been disposed of by consent of the parties and that the respondents Nos.2 and 3 A have given undertaking to accommodate affected students in their schools, we find no substance in this appeal and, therefore, dismiss the same in limine.

10. AA./S‑1011/K ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed.