High Court Appeal No.05 of 2010
Date Order with signature of the Judge
For order on Review Application No.06/2012.
(Application filed by respondent and order passed by Hon’ble Chief Justice
thereon may kindly be perused flag “Z”)
(Attention is respectfully invited to the order dated 12.11.2012 passed by
Hon’ble Chief Justice at flag “A”).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Sofia Saeed Shah, Advocate for Applicant along with Applicant Mst. Imtiaz Bibi.
Mr. Muhammad Khalid Hayat, Advocate for Mrs. Bushra Saeed.
-------------------------
Through this application applicant seeks review of judgment dated 22.02.2012. Counsel for the applicant contends that since the respondent No.3 or her predecessor-in-interest had never agreed to the disposal of the Execution Application No.13/2009, therefore, following observations made by this Court at page 7 of the judgment, which is reproduced herein below, are liable to be reviewed:-
“the respondents also by seeking disposal of the execution application had given up their right of full recovery and instead of claiming Rs.65 Million from the appellant from the sale of the properties given up their claim of Rs.13.5 Million by agreeing to the disposal of the execution and accepting the bid of Rs.51.5 Million”
Consequently case files of Execution Applications No.12 and 13 of 2009 were summoned from the branch and on examining both the execution applications it transpired that Execution Application No.13/2009 was disposed of by consent on 10.12.2009 through following consent order:-
“By consent, the present execution application is disposed of, in the following terms:-
1. That the judgment-debtor No.1 shall within 20 days from today, procure and place before this Court an offer of Rs.60.500 millions along with a deposit of 25% thereof, in favour of Nazir of this Court.
2. That the balance amount shall be paid by the judgment-debtor No.1 within 20 days thereafter.
3. However, in case, the judgment-debtor fails to comply with the above, the sale in favour of the present purchaser shall stand confirmed.”
Counsel for the applicant says that since this order was not in the knowledge of the applicant, therefore, such review was sought, consequently she has asked the applicant, as to whether, she still wants to press this application, as according to the counsel after going through the order reproduced above, there is no ground to seek review. However, the applicant insisted that an order on merits be passed.
Since the judgment dated 22.02.2012 was passed with full application of mind and after scrutiny of record i.e. order dated 23.10.2009, which is available in Execution Application No.12/2009, whereas Execution Application No.13/2009 reflects “same order” whereby bid of Agha Zarar Khan was accepted in the sum of Rs.51,500,000/- reflects that the counsel of applicant’s predecessor-in-interest Mr. Ilyas Khan Tanoli was present and pleaded for accepting bid of Agha Zarar Khan for Rs.51,500,000/-, whereafter by consent both the execution applications were disposed of on 10.12.2009 through above reproduced order.
In the circumstances, neither any newly discover fact, error or mistake has been brought to our notice, therefore, no case for review is made out. Consequently, review application is dismissed.
JUDGE
JUDGE