HYDERABAD, Feb 7: The Sindh High Court, Hyderabad circuit bench, here on Wednesday directed the Taluka City Council and other officials to maintain status quo with regard to the demolition of a cinema.

The court issued notices to the secretary of Local Government, the Nazim of Taluka City Council, the District Coordination Officer and the Appellate Tribunal Control, local council Karachi, for February 12. The additional advocate general has also been issued the notice.

The notices were issued on a civil first appeal filed by Shaikh Muhammad Ahmed, Saleem Ahmed and Khursheed Alam as they felt aggrieved by the order of the first senior civil judge, Hyderabad, in a plaint which was decreed against them.

A portion of the Elite cinema, which was on lease to appellants, had been demolished last week by the Taluka City Council soon after the plaint was decreed in favour of the Council administration.

The appellants said that the lower court had completely misunderstood the contents of the plaint and had not applied its judicial mind for disposal of application under order VII rule II, of the CPC.

The lawyer argued in the appeal that the lower court judge did not consider the case law referred to him which said that while deciding application under the order VII rule II of the CPC, the court must confine itself to the consideration of facts stated in the plaint.

He said that the court had also failed to appreciate that the consent to purchase the cinema was given by the appellants/plaintiffs on Feb 23, 1992 and that it being the duty of respondents/defendants, to ask the appellants to deposit money and enter into an agreement, and then Hyderabad Municipal Corporation failed to take any action.

He argued that the order of the lower court was also incorrect in the eyes of law as section 53 of the Contract Act would not be applicable in the present case and added that the lower court had erred in holding that there was no contract with the HMC, when the appellants, on the proposal of the HMC, had agreed to buy the cinema for Rs15,00,000, then it was duty of the HMC to issue challan which was malafidely withheld.

He drew the attention of the court that the lower court judge had also failed to notice that rent continued to be paid/accepted to date by the HMC so there was a contractual obligation between appellants and the HMC.

The counsel pointed out that the point of jurisdiction was not pressed by respondents advocate and as such findings of lower court that order, passed by respondent-4, in appeal, had become final, was wrong because the order, which had been passed by the Tribunal on Nov 5,1985, was illegal.

He said that plot belonged to the HMC which had now been transferred to the appellants and matter was sub judice in the court. machinery, structure, air-condition plant belonged to appellants, he added.

He prayed the court to set aside the order of first senior civil judge and possession be restored to appellants. He said that the respondents should be restrained from causing any third party interest in the property.