“42. The approach of lear n ed Lower Court, in my consid e red opinion, was not only illegal but the same was rather pervers e as findings on issues No.1 and 3 have been returned in favour o f the plaintiff in total disregard to the evidence on record and by m isappreciating the same. As pe r learned lower Court, in the not i ces served upon the plaintiff, the extent of illegal construction has not been mentioned and so, the pl a intiff was entitled to the injuncti o n. I am afraid that the said obse r vation of the learned lower Cou r t is absolutely not acceptable. P la intiff himself admitted that he had received the notices from the d efendants but he did not challenge the same before the Chief Admi n istrator, HUDA. Even in this c a se, plaintiff has not challenged t h e legality or validity of any of the notices served upon him o n any of the grounds, whatsoe v er, particularly the ground that same did not mention the exten t of violation. Apart from this, de s pite repetition, it is mentioned h ere again that the entire construction raised by the plaintiff is illegal and unauthorized, being in viola t ion of the terms of allotment and without prior approval or per m ission of the competent authorit y . In the circumstances, plaintiff is not at all entitled to the injunc t ion prayed by him. ”
