2008 PLP 201 (MLD)
ABU BAKER and others — Petitioners Versus Messrs T.J. IBRAHIM and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 201 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABU BAKER and others — Petitioners Versus Messrs T.J. IBRAHIM and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 201 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 201 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 201 (MLD) (ABU BAKER and others — Petitioners Versus Messrs T.J. IBRAHIM and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shafi Muhammadi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.12(2)
Application against fraud and misrepresentation in transaction
Applicant claimed that property in dispute was purchased by him from its original allottee; that conveyance deed respecting the transaction was duly executed and registered; that property in dispute was never owned or transferred in favour of the attorney of respondent; that on the strength of statement of said attorney a declaration was given by the court vide impugned order to the effect that property in dispute was the assets of respondent-company which had given power of attorney to the attorney and that power of attorney in favour of the attorney was revoked through registered revocation
Allegation of applicant was that such declaration was obtained by the attorney by playing fraud upon the court and by misrepresentation
Impugned order to the extent of declaration that properties were assets of the respondent-company under liquidation on bald statement of attorney, could not be sustained and was liable to be recalled
Attorney had been established to have mis-represented before the court that he was owner of subject property on the strength of power of attorney
Attorney had suppressed the fact that his power of attorney was revoked much before his statement was recorded in the court
Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. was allowed and property in dispute was excluded from the assets of respondent-company and order to the extent of declaration against property in dispute was set aside.
Judgment & Decree
MUSHIR ALAM, J.
Mr. Shafi Muhamamdi requests further time to assist the Court as to whether non-Muslim legal heirs would succeed to a Muslim intestate or not.
2. Listed application C.M.A. No. 1652 of 2003 under section 12(2), C.P.C. filed by applicant Muhammad Ayub Sarwar Malik on the ground that, Property bearing No.9-F Commercial Area Muhammad Ali Memorial Co-operative Society Karachi (subject property) is the property of the applicant having purchased from its original allottee lessee, Mrs. Nazli Rabbani, conveyance deed was duly executed and registered on 28-8-1998. It was urged that the subject property was never owned or transferred in favour of Ilyas Amin. It is though admitted that he was appointed as an attorney in respect of the subject property through registered Power of Attorney, dated 12-4-1998 coupled with agreement of sale, dated 21-2-1998. It is urged that on the strength of statement of Ilyas Amin, declaration was given by this Court vide order, dated 28-6-2002 to the effect that the property is an asset of Alliance Motors and Tee Jay Ibrahim and Company, said Ilyas Amin has no right, title or interest in the property. His power of attorney was revoked through registered revocation. It was urged that such declaration was obtained by Ilyas Amin who played fraud upon the Court and by misrepresentation obtained such order. It appears that this Court while hearing C.M.A. No. 1352 of 2003 under section 12(2), C.P.C. directed the liquidators to hold inquiry and applicant was also directed to appear before liquidator. It appears that inquiry has been conducted and report is available. It is regrettably noted that despite prolonged enquiry nothing substantial turned out. No conclusion could be drawn from the result of the inquiry as has been placed in Court. Learned counsel for the applicant points out that the power of attorney given to Ilyas Amin was cancelled through registered revocation, dated 16-2-1990 available at page 44 part `C' of the inquiry report. Agreement- of sale, dated 21-2-1998 executed by Mrs. Nazli in favour of Ilyas Amin is available at page 10 of part `D' of the inquiry. From the perusal of the agreement, it appears total sum of Rs.6 lac was paid in advance, balance amount was to be paid on 11-4-1998. Nothing was brought on record to show that balance amount was ever paid. Agreement also contained forfeiture clause. It has also come on record that on failure of Ilyas Amin to comply with the terms and condition of the agreement, his Power of Attorney was revoked followed by a legal notice, dated 13-3-1990 (available at page 46 part `C'). It seems that after revocation of sale agreement and power of attorney of Ilyas Amin, the owner Mrs. Nazli entered and executed registered conveyance, dated 28-8-1998 in favour of applicant Muhammad Ayub Sarwar, there is nothing on record to controvert the claim of the applicant. It is noted that, no notice to Mrs. Nazli the original owner was given nor she was examined by the Official Assignee before making reference through C.M.A. No. 1195 of 2002 under section 351 of the. Companies Ordinance, therefore in my opinion the order, dated 28-6-2002 to the extent of declaring that the property is assets of company under liquidation on the bald statement of Ilyas Amin cannot be sustained and is liable to be recalled. It is established that Ilyas Amin misrepresented before this .Court, that he is owner of subject property on the strength of Power of Attorney. He suppressed that fact, that his Power of Attorney was revoked much before his statement in Court was recorded. Application in view of the foregoing is allowed subject property is excluded from the assets of Alliance Motors and "Tee Jays Ibrahim, order, dated 28-6-2001 to the extent of declaration against the subject property is set aside. It appears that notice on C.M.A. No. 2621 of 2003 and C.M.A. No.1356 of 2002 could not be issued as cost has not been paid. Mr. Umrani Learned Official Assignee states that same has been deposited, in case cost is not paid, let same be paid and notice be issued to all the concerned. H.B.T./A-131/K Application allowed.