GULZAR ALIAS GULZARI Versus STATE

ORDER

ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J. ‑‑The property in dispute in this case consists of a building on plot No. GK‑4/57 Yousuf Street , Kharadar, Karachi . According to the petitioner one Faiz Muhammad ancestor of the respondents had dedicated the ground floor of the building as a mosque and Imam Bargah some 40 years ago, which has been used as such ever since and is called Masjid‑e Chahardeh Masoomeen. It seems the respondents have obtained an ejectment order in respect of the disputed building which they were seeking to execute in order to obtain vacant possession of the building.

2. The petitioner apprehending that the mosque and the Imam Bargah building will be demolished has filed a suit for a declaration and injunction in the civil Court claiming to be the Mutawalli of the said waqf. An application for temporary injunction moved before the trial Court was dismissed and the appeal filed against the said order also failed in the Court of Additional District Judge, South Karachi .

3. Being aggrieved the petitioner sought to challenge t e order re using temporary injunction in a revision petition before the Sind High Court. In the events that happened this revision petition was compromised and disposed of in terms of the written agreement of compromise between the parties dated 23rd December, 1987 . The revision petition was disposed of in terms of the compromise by a learned Single Judge by his order of the same date. The substance of the agreement between the parties was that the existing nature of the premises shall be maintained pending the disposal of the suit and that the petitioner will hand over possession of the premises to the respondents in execution proceedings.

4. It is the aforesaid order which is sought to be challenged in the present petition for leave to appeal. When it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Single Judge had disposed of the revision in terms of the agreement, which was not being denied how can the petitioner make a grievance of the order, the counsel replied that the respondents are threatening to commit breach of the compromise application by bringing about changes in the structure of the building. It was further submitted that the respondents will prevent the use of the budding for purposes of mosque and Imam Bargah.

5. The obvious answer to these contentions is that if the order of the High Court incorporating the terms of the compromise, is in any way breached, by any party to the proceedings, it will be for the High Court to take action in accordance with law. But that is no ground for challenging the order of the High Court.

6. For the foregoing reasons we see no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.

M.Y.H./M‑623/S Petition dismissed.