BoP, other flat owners challenge IHC verdict against One Constitution Avenue lease
Why this matters: local context for readers following news across Pakistan and the region.
ISLAMABAD – Bank of Punjab and several other flat owners of the One Constitution Avenue project have filed separate intra-court appeals in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) against a recent single bench verdict that upheld the cancellation of the project’s lease. The appeals challenge the ruling that supported the Capital Development Authority (CDA) decision to terminate the lease of the high-profile commercial and residential project over alleged payment defaults amounting to billions of rupees. The development marks a new phase in the prolonged legal dispute surrounding the 13.5-acre One Constitution Avenue project located near Constitution Avenue and the Convention Centre in Islamabad. On April 30, 2026, a single-member bench of the IHC dismissed a petition filed by M/s BNP (Private) Limited, the original lessee of the project, and restored the CDA’s lease cancellation order. The court had also ruled that the rights of third-party buyers and sub-lessees were linked to the original lessee, stating that they would “sink or sail” with BNP (Private) Limited. Following the judgment, the Bank of Punjab filed an intra-court appeal, arguing that the verdict was contrary to the facts and law. However, the Registrar’s Office has reportedly raised objections regarding the maintainability of the appeal. According to court documents, BNP (Private) Limited had obtained financing from the Bank of Punjab and subsequently used those funds to make payments to the CDA. The bank also stated that it had acquired approximately 25,420 square feet of space in the project on sub-lease for establishing a branch and related facilities. The allotted space reportedly includes portions of the lower ground, upper ground, and first floors of the building. Several other appellants, including overseas Pakistanis and individual property buyers, have also approached the divisional bench, arguing that the single bench ruling adversely affects their lawful ownership and property rights. Through th