ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

C.P. No.D-228 of 2011.

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

1. For hearing of M.A. No.1031 of 2011.

2. For katcha peshi.

05-03-2015.

Mr. Atta Hussain Gaddi Pathan, advocate for petitioner.

None present for respondent No.1.

Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro, Additional Advocate General Sindh.

Mr. Zaheeruddin Sahito, advocate for respondent No.4.

Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has filed written statement, which is taken on record, copy whereof provided to other side.

This petition has been preferred against private respondent, who is a builder. The petitioner has prayed that direction be given to respondent No.1 to handover the possession of the petitioner’s flat after completing it, in all manners. He has also prayed for the rent in the sum of Rs.4000/- per month with effect from 01-07-2007 till possession of the flat is handed over. However, a general prayer has been made against the respondents No.4 and 5 to take pre-cautionary measures and protect the poor people from cheating and fraud of respondent No.1.

Instead of filing suit, the petitioner has preferred this petition, which is not maintainable, as no writ can be issued against private person. Secondly, if the project is being delayed by respondent No.1 or there was any element of cheating the members of public at large or any corrupt practice, it is open to the petitioner to file appropriate criminal proceedings against respondent No.1, in addition to the civil suit for securing the possession of the flat in accordance with terms and conditions of their agreement with the builder. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to an order dated 23.12.2010, passed by learned Division Bench of this Court in C.P. No.D-1032 of 2010. Let us clarify first that this was not a final order and in that case the main grievance was against H.B.C.A, who in order to extend some favour to the builder has ordered for sealing of the premises in question and the Court held that the sealing of the premises in question by H.B.C.A. was unjustified. Court treated the act of sealing as an act of blessing in disguise as the allottees had made the payment, which was pocketed by the Builder and to get an excuse for not raising construction, he got a fictitious order from the Building Control Authority.

The above order is distinguishable and does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. As a result of our discussion, this petition is dismissed, alongwith listed application. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate proceedings for protecting his right and interest in accordance with law.

JUDGE