1997 PLP 97 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD GUL, J.‑This order shall be read in continuation of the Court's for Respondents. Dates of hearing: 21st and 22nd October 1975. MUHAMMAD GUL, J‑This order shall be read in continuation of the Courts order dated the 15th August 1975 which sets out the material facts leading to this civil petition. Pursuant to that order, the learner Assistant Advocate‑General (Sind) appeared to assist the Court as some of the essential facts considered necessary for a satisfactory disposal of the petition were not clear and the petitioners were not represented by counsel The learned Assistant Advocate‑General has accordingly addressed us after having perused the relevant record. The facts briefly are that the petitioners sued in farma paupris for the recovery of Rs. 33,100 as damages for wrongful attachment of their shop by the City Deputy Collector, respondent 3 herein, purporting to be for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,406 advanced ' to them as loan by the Refugee Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (respondent 13 herein), even after they had repaid the loan. The petitioners' case throughout bad been that they bad paid the amount due direct to respondent 13 on 26‑1‑1961 and instruction were issued to the City Deputy Collector, respondent 3 herein, to unseal the petitioners` shop which was sealed by him earlier. The petitioner s allegation was that in collusion with the respondents 14 to 16, the City Deputy Collector had wrongfully kept their shop under seal for one year and 11) months even after the payment of the loan to respondent 13.. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General pointed out dm: according, to the findings of the learned Single Judge, the shop was actually unsealed on 27‑1‑1961 but was again sealed by the civil Court's bailiffs (respondent 8 to 12) in execution (if a money decree for a sum of Rs. 1,000 passed the Court of Small Causes, Karachi, in favour of respondents 14 to 16 against petitioner No. 3, for arrears of rent. In this behalf the Assistant Advocate‑General referred to the admission made by petitioner No. 1 while appearing as a witness and also in paragraph 15 of the plaint in the pauper, suit in which it has been admitted in, unmistakable terms that the judgment creditors had taken out execution of the Small Causes Court and it was in the course of execution proceedings of that decree that the shops was again sealed and remained under seal until the order revision by the High Court in Civil Revision No. 104 of 1962. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of plaint read: "

14. That the plaintiffs filed objection under sections 21 and 58' before the Judge of Small Causes Court, Karachi.

15. That the defendant No. 17 took objection against the sealing the immovable property under the Small Causes Court Decree. The objection was dismissed. The defendant No. 17 went in Revision against the dismissal of his objection to the Hon'ble High Court Karachi numbering 104/1962. The revision was allowed/ and the lower Court was directed to unseal the shop which was immovable property." Such being the facts of the case, suit against respondent No. 3 and the Provincial Government etc. was wholly misconceived. We have heard the petitioner, No. 3 over again, in support of his, petition on the facts of the case and we are satisfied 1 that the case was rightly decided in the High Court on merits. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.