1995 PLP 474 (CLC)

SYED HAIDER ALI PRIZADA, J.‑‑‑This High Court Appeal is directed against the order.dated 14‑1-1992 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The appellant filed suit for declaration, permanent injunction and for a consolidated claim valued at Rs.2,02,99,

900. During the pendency of the suit four applications being C.M.As. Nos. 6059/91, 6060/91, 5020/91 and 45/92 were moved. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent No. 2 moved an application that he should be allowed to complete the entire remaining constructions with all fittings and also to complete the other flats of the allottees under the supervision of the Official Assignee and submitted a joint agreement/undertaking arrived at between appellant and the respondent No. 2 with the consent of the Official Assignee. Whereupon a learned Single Judge directed the respondent No. 2 to deposit Rs. five lacs within a month with the Official Assignee and then start work to complete the incomplete construction but he failed to deposit the amount within the specified time and again time was extended for depositing the amount but when the respondent No. 2 failed to deposit the amount it was ordered to sell the open plot and five flats through auction to meet the required expenditure. The Official Assignee advertised the sale of the same through newspaper. It is the further case of the appellant that some of the respondents and other intervenors filed objections and the same was placed for hearing on 14‑1‑1992. On 14‑1‑1992, the learned Single Judge passed the following order:‑‑ "Mr. Abdul Monem Khan and Mr. Iftikharuddin Siddiqui stated that all the Directors of defendant No. 1 are now present in Karachi and are making efforts to complete work and request that the hearing of these applications be adjourned to enable them to make preparation. By consent the hearing of these applications is adjourned to 4‑2‑1992. If by that date the Director of defendant No. 1 has not started the work or does not submit definite plan or carrying out the work the previous orders for sale of the property subject to the objections of the Intervenors will be carried out." We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the contesting respondents in this appeal. We find that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is not a speaking order and does not deal with any of the three conditions/considerations which require serious attention of the Court. Before us Mr. Monem Khan would not defend the impugned order and after some initial hesitation agreed that the case may be sent back to the original side of this Court for a decision afresh after hearing all the parties. We, therefore, accept the appeal and vacate the impugned order dated 14th June 1992 and send back the case for a fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law after hearing the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Additional Registrar (O.S.) on 19‑5‑1993 when he will fix the date for hearing of all the applications. A.A./L‑76/K Case remanded.