Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NOOR MUHAMMAD and others VS Respondent: KARACHI BUILDINGS CONTROL AUTHORITY, K.M.C. through Chief Controller, Karachi and 6 others
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Sabihuddin Ahmed, Syed Ali Aslam Jafri Title:NOOR MUHAMMAD and others vs KARACHI BUILDINGS CONTROL AUTHORITY,
K.M.C. through Chief Controller, Karachi and 6 others Case No.: Constitutional Petition No,3306 Of 1993 Date of Judgment:2003-01-31 Reported As: 2003 CLC 987 Result: Order accordingly Judgment ORDER Mr. Saalim Salam Ansari learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order dated 7- 3-1994 was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation inasmuch as the respondent No,1 in their parawise comments had clearly stated that they were helpless in performing their statutory duty on the ground that they have been restrained from demolishing the premises by interim order passed by VI Court of Senior Civil Judge, Karachi South, in Suit No,1112 of 1993. Therefore since it was stated in Court that the injunction had since been vacated the petitioner in good faith believed that the respondent No,1 would not perform its duty ordained by law and therefore did not press the petition. ' However, subsequently the petitioner came to know that the interim injunction had been vacated almost three months prior to the date of hearing in this Court and the contentions in the written statement to the effect that "the respondent No,1 is helpless due, to status quo order" was false and fraudulent. ' In all fairness we are of the view that the petitioner might have withdrawn the petition under the bona fide belief that the respondent No,1 was alive to and interested in performing its duty, A and such belief was caused by a false statement, the order dated 7-3-1994 needs to be recalled and the case be decided on merits. This application is accordingly allowed. 2. The alleged contemnor is required to appear in person on the next date of hearing and show cause why action under the Contempt of Court Act should not be taken against him for .Making a deliberately false statement in the parawise comments dated 7-3-1994 filed before this Court. ' To come up on 26-2-2003.