ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P. No.D-25 Of 2010. ________________________________________________________

Order with signature of Judge

 

1.         For order on Office Objection a/w reply.

2.         For Katcha Peshi.

 

----

 

04.02.2010.

 

Mr. Ghulam Shabbir Babar, Advocate alongwith the petitioner.

Mr. Faridul Hassan Abbasi, AAG alongwith ASI Muhammad Ramzan of P.S. Ghambat.

Mr. Behram Khan Ujjan, Advocate.

 

………

 

 

            The SHO of P.S. Ghambat has submitted a report that the alleged detenue was not recovered from Ghulam Nabi Ujjan. Such report is kept on record.

Mr. Behram Khan Ujjan, Advocate has voluntarily appeared in Court and stated that the police have raided his own house in Khairpur. Apparently the report which has been filed by the SHO shows that the house of Ghulam Nabi Ujjan was searched by him and not that of Mr. Behram Khan Ujjan.

Mr. Behram Khan Ujjan, Advocate states that the alleged detenue has come from Azad Kashmir and visited his office and requested that she may be provided protection. He states that upon her request he has arranged to have lodged her at Panah Shelter Home and that subsequently he has assisted her in having her statement recorded before the Xth Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Karachi Central and arranged her to leave the Panah Shelter Home with Fayyaz who stated to be brother in law of the alleged detenue. The counsel further states that one Inayat Hussain is a painter while Fayyaz is a plumber and both were working in his house at R-50, Rehman Villas, Sector 38-A, Scheme No.33, University Road, Gulshan-e-Iqbal Town, Karachi.

The petitioner made a statement in Court that he has visited the office of Mr. Behram Khan Ujjan, Advocate number of time and ultimately Mr. Behram Khan Ujjan, Advocate has agreed to provide him assistance in having access to his daughter and has asked him to pay Rs.200,000/-. Mr. Behram Khan Ujjan, Advocate states that he has asked the petitioner to pay him Rs.200,000/- for arranging access to his daughter but states that such money was asked by him for meeting expenses of traveling as he states that the daughter of the petitioner, the alleged detenue, is at Rawalpindi. He states that this information that the alleged detenue is at Rawalpindi was conveyed to him by the alleged detenue herself and her husband on telephone.

            It appears that the alleged detenue and her husband are in contact with Mr. Behram Khan Ujjan, Advocate and he also seems to be having their confidence and Mr. Behram Khan Ujjan states that perhaps he may prevail upon the alleged detenue and her husband to come over to Karachi and appear before this Court.

In these circumstances Mr. Behram Khan Ujjan, Advocate is directed to contact the alleged detenue and her husband and to arrange her presence before the Court on the next date. If any expense in this regard incurred by Mr. Behram Khan Ujjan, Advocate, the Court will pass an appropriate order on it on the next date of hearing.

            Adjourned to 11.02.2010. To be taken up at 11:00 a.m.

 

 

           

 

 

JUDGE

JUDGE

Tahseen/PA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

HCA No.140 Of 2009. ________________________________________________________

Order with signature of Judge

 

For Katcha Peshi.

 

----

 

04.02.2010.

 

Mr. Muhammad Farooq Advocate.

 

………

 

            By this appeal the appellant has challenged the order dated 06.04.2009, passed in Suit No.623/2007 by the learned Single Judge of this Court by which the appellant's Application under Order-VII, Rule-11 CPC was dismissed. The contention of the appellant is that the suit was hopelessly time barred inasmuch as the last transaction regarding the issue involved between the appellant and the respondent was made in April, 1997 and thereafter no transaction or payment whatsoever was made by the appellant to the respondent and that the respondent relies upon the document filed as Annexure-P/13 with the plaint which is dated 25.03.2007 showing acknowledgment of liability by the appellant. Learned counsel states that such acknowledgement in itself is time barred and secondly it did not sign by the appellant and signature on it are forged.

The last mentioned submission admittedly will not come within the purview of Rule-11 of Order-VII CPC but the question regarding limitation as argued needs to be considered.

            Issue preadmission notice to the respondent for a date in office.

 

           

 

JUDGE

JUDGE

Tahseen/PA

 

 

 

 

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P. No.297 Of 2008. ________________________________________________________

Order with signature of Judge

 

1.                  For orders on CMA – 451/10 (Contempt).

2.                  For hearing of CMA – 1069/09.

3.                  For hearing of CMA – 1086/09.

4.                  For further order on letter dated 14.12.08

may kindly be seen at Flat 'A'.

 

----

 

04.02.2010.

 

Mr. Shoukat H. Zubedi, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Suhail Adeeb Bichani, EDO (Revenue), Jamshoro.

            Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Kalhoro, Sub-Registrar, Kotri.

            Mr. Sahaluddin Mughal, Investigation Officer of NAB.

Muhammad Riaz, Special Prosecutor NAB.

Allottees of the subject land namely Bashir Ahmed Soomro, Roshan Ali Jungo, Nawab Ali Abro, Nafees Noor Soomro, Shah Din Chandio, Hamadullah Burio, A. Sami, Ali Akbar, Muhammad Usman, A. Rahim, Adam Pervaiz, Anjan Ali, Imtiaz Ali, Saeed Ahmed, Yar Muhammad, Hamid Ali, Muhammad Aslam, Ghulam Ali Baber, Muhammad Yousuf & Muhammad Suleman Soomro are present in person.

 

………

 

            It seems that despite order of this Court dated 19.01.2010, the Director General Sehwan Development Authority is not in attendance. Let bailable warrant be issued against him for his appearance in Court on the next date.

            It appears that the petitioner has launched two schemes by the names of Gulshan-e-Hassan & Gulshan-e-Latif on Survey No.15, Makhan Mathi, Deh Sonwalhar, Taluka Kotri. The scheme of Gulshan-e-Hassan was on 4 acres of land having total 80 plots while Gulshan-e-Latif was on 2 acres of land having 37 plots and apparently it seems that the layout plans of both the schemes were approved by Hyderabad Development Authority (HDA). The petitioner however has booked 230 plots in Gulshan-e-Hassan and 410 plots in Gulshan-e-Latif and has received a huge amount from the allotees. It also appears that subsequently the petitioner tried to accommodate the excessive allottees in Survey No.14 of the same Deh which is stated to be comprising of 10 acres and 10 guntas as extension of Gulistan-e-Latif which lands the petitioner claims to have obtained from its owner by way of power of attorney. Whether the purported owner have real title to the land of Survey No.14 it is not clear. Apparently the petitioner seems to have received a huge amount and committed a serious offence in making booking of the plots in excess of the plots approved in the layout plan and has caused severe anguish and disturbance besides money loss to the allottees.

It appears that while granting bail to the petitioner vide order dated 09.04.2008 the petitioner's counsel has undertaken that the petitioner will make all arrangement to return the money of the effectees within six months and deliver possession of the plots to the persons who have made full payment. Such an order apparently seems to remain still uncomplied as neither any payment seems to have been made by the petitioner nor he has delivered possession of the plot to any of the allottees. It however appears that pursuant to this order, the Accountability Court has allowed the registration of the sale deed and it is stated by the effected persons, who are present in Court, that the petitioner registered as many as 42 sale deeds to the persons who were not original allottees of the plots in Gulshan-e-Latif but seems to be the persons from whom the petitioner subsequently has received certain payments. The admitted position however is that the possession to none of the allottees or to the persons in whose favor sale deeds have been registered, have been given. It is stated that the petitioner has not undertaken any step towards the development of the plots and even demarcations have not been made as yet.

            Mr. Shoukat H. Zubedi Advocate states that all the excessive purchasers of the plots will be accommodated by the petitioner in the land bearing Survey No.14. It is, however, noted that effected persons say that the petitioner is still continuing to book the plots in Gulshan-e-Latif and receiving payments.

It is stated by the Investigation Officer that in respect of Gulshan-e-Hassan Reference No.5 of 2008 has already been filed by the Chairman NAB in the Accountability Court No.1 at Karachi and the same is pending. He further states that with regard to the commission of offence of cheating and other allegations in respect of Gulshan-e-Latif the approval of the Chairman NAB is awaited for filing of the reference against the petitioner.

            It seems that the petitioner has caused multiple problems for innocent peoples by his act of cheating and it is becoming difficult to control the situation, more so for the reason that the petitioner apparently misusing the concessions of bail granted to him to the extent that he is drawing benefit by committing further cheating and fraud with the innocent peoples.

In the circumstances it makes a case of cancellation of bail. However, as an indulgence one more opportunity is extended to the petitioner to settle all the matters with the allottees by making payment to them according to the present rate/value of the land or to give them possession of the land and in case the land is not available with the petitioner to acquire the same through proper title documents and after obtaining layout plan adjust all the allottees by giving possession to them. This exercise be done by the petitioner preferably within a period of two weeks beyond which no further time will be allowed by the Court.

            The Sub-Registrar Kotri has filed his statement. Further the effected persons have also filed statements and another statement has been filed by the EDO (Revenue) Jamshoro. Copies of the above documents have been supplied to the counsel for the petitioner in Court today.

            The petitioner is directed to file a comprehensive statement of all the allottees of plots in Gulshan-e-Hassan as well as in Gulshan-e-Latif containing full particulars of the allottees and the amount received by him from them. The petitioner is also directed to mention in such statement as to whether he has executed the sale deed/conveyance deed of the plots. The petitioner is further directed to mention in the said statement as to whether he has completed all preliminaries of obtaining the demarcation of the plots and steps taken by him for making internal developments with specific description of each step and supporting document proving such fact be filed with the statement.

            The petitioner will personally be present in Court on the next date. All the officials are also directed to be present in Court on the next date.

            Adjourned to 23.02.2010. To be taken up at 11:00 a.m.

 

 

JUDGE

JUDGE

Tahseen/PA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

 

C.P. No: D-280 of 2010

__________________________________________________

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

_________________________________________________

 

1. For order on Misc. 1120/2010.

2. For order on Misc. 1121/2010

3. For Katcha Peshi

4. For order on Misc. 1122/2010

5. For order on Misc. 1123/2010

 

04.02.2010

 

                                Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Sheikh, advocate for the Petitioner.

____

 

                                The only contention of the petitioner’s counsel is that the respondent No:4 is not paying taxes of the use of the plot. On perusal of the document annexure-‘A’ with the petition it appears that petitioner has sent a legal notice to the respondent No:4, stating that the plot is not being used for welfare purposes, such notice was replied by the counsel for respondent No:4 in which it is stated that the plot is an amenity one and it is being used for charitable purposes, and social functions of the members of the D.M.C.H. Society. It has been further denied that amenity plot is being used for commercial purposes. It may be noted that the petitioner himself is resident of Azam Basti and apparently has no connection with the respondent No:4 or the D.M.C.H Society and secondly the questions raised in the petition apparently are of disputed nature, which cannot be decided in a petition filed Under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Consequently we find the petition to be not maintainable, the same is therefore, dismissed in limine. All the listed applications are also dismissed

 

JUDGE

 

                                                                                                                                JUDGE