KARACHI, Dec 5: The Sindh High Court on Friday dismissed with costs “a frivolous” application by an alleged purchaser of the former Indian high commission building in the city for a permanent injunction against the Sindh government and police restraining them from interfering with his “possession” of the premises.

The application was moved by Syed Ali Baqar Naqvi, who claimed to have paid Rs 2 million as earnest money to Karim Ghulam Hussain Jiva, the last in the series of alleged owners of the building. The total price to be paid, according to the plaintiff, was Rs 33,976,500. Mr Jiva, chief executive of Elite Builders and Developers, claimed to have derived his title from Manzoor Hussain, who bought the property from Ms Latifan Begum. The property was allegedly purchased by Ms Latifan from the late Indian president Dr Rajendra Prasad in 1964.

The only point of agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants was that the 3,883-square-yard plot (number 63-63/1, Clifton) was first leased out in 1946 by the Karachi Municipal Corporation to Parmanand Kundamal, who alienated the 99-year lease in favour of Mr and Mrs N.E. Supariwala, from whom it was purchased by the Indian head of the State in 1952. The building housed the Indian High Commission till its shifting to Islamabad, when it was converted into a consulate. It fell into disuse on the closure of the consulate.

An Indian airline official, who looks after his country’s property in the city, noticed some construction activity at the building and reported the matter to the Indian authorities, who took it up with the Pakistan government and the police moved in to prevent illegal occupation of the premises. The alleged purchaser instituted a suit against the provincial government and the police.

An interim status quo order restraining the defendant government was passed by Justice Ataur Rahman, who heard the suit on Oct 16. Extensive arguments were advanced by Advocates Raja Qureshi for the plaintiff and by Advocate-General Anwar Mansoor Khan for the provincial government. Advocate Suleiman Habibullah appeared for Mr Jiva, who was impleaded by the plaintiff as a defendant, while Additional Advocate-General M. Ahmed Pirzada assisted the AG. Justice Rahman reserved his order on the suit and the accompanying applications on Nov 11.

Disposing of an interlocutory application that apparently sealed the fate of the entire case, Justice Rahman observed that the plaintiff’s “plea of protecting his right to acquire the suit property through an interim order or injunction is not tenable”. Tentatively, he said, “it is found that the plaintiff and defendant No 6 (Mr Jiva) have not come to the court with clean hands”. The plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is also not in his favour. He is at liberty to initiate proceedings against the alleged seller if so advised.

Awarding Rs 5000 as costs of the proceedings on the application, Justice Rahman said: “I do not find any justification in relying upon the documents produced by the plaintiff and defendant number six (Mr Jiva) and ignoring the official record placed by the official defendants. Pakistan being the host country is, under the Vienna Convention, legally bound to protect the interest and properties of foreign missions. This is more fundamental in this case as several properties of the Indian government are lying empty in the city”. Upholding the argument advanced by AG Mansoor Anwar Khan, he observed that the property was not purchased by the late Indian president personally. It was only bought in his name as required by Article 299(1) of the Indian constitution, which corresponds to Article 173 of our constitution, he said.