ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Suit No.632 of 2005

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATE                  ORDER WITH SIGNATURES OF JUDGE(S)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. For hearing of CMA 12831/16

2. For examination of parties/settlement of issues.

Dated: 04.09.2018

Mr. R.F. Virjee for plaintiff.

Mr. Imran Ahmed for plaintiff in Suit No.811/2001 and for defendant in Suit No.283 and 632 of 2005.

Mr. Zaheer Ahmed Khan for defendant No.1 in Suit No.1311/01.

Mr. Muhammad Ehsan for defendant No.1 in Suits No.632/05 and 811/01.

-.-.-

Mr. Virjee by way of background stated that undisputedly Mrs. Bankwala is the owner of the property registered with Registration No.2047, being a commercial plot admeasuring 1329 sq. yards or thereabout being Plot No.CL-5, out of which an area of 70 X 65 feet was leased out through indenture dated 25.11.1969 (page 27) for the purposes of constructing a Filling/Service Station at the rate of Rs.1,100/- per month. The said lease was for an initial term of 10 years commencing from 01.10.1969, which expired after this period whereupon a fresh lease dated 23.10.1979 was made in respect of the said piece of land at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month for a term of 10 years commencing from 01.10.1978. When the second term expired, through Deed of Lease dated 19.01.1989 Mrs. Bankwala extended the tenure of the filling/ service station leased out to Barma Shell Company for a further period of ten years however at the rate of Rs.3,400/- per month. The said term expired on 30.09.1998. At which juncture, the possession of the demised plot was not handed over to the lessor, which resulted in communication between the parties i.e. plaintiff and defendant No.1, copies of which are attached between pages 89 to 117. The Court has been informed that in fact the defendant No.1 installed defendant No.2 M/s Universal Auto Supplies as defendant No.1’s dealer to run and operate the said facility. At this juncture the Court inquired from the counsel for defendant No.1 to identify or bring on record the dealership agreement, which defendant No.1 entered into with defendant No.2 for which counsel seeks time. He however has filed statements in Suits No.811/2001 and 632/2005, which are taken on record, copies supplied to other counsels.

To come up on 19.09.2018. 

Judge