1986 PLP 642 (CLC)

Muhammad Anis for Plaintiff/ Applicant. M . A . M . Namazi for Respondents Nos. 1 and

2. Inamul Haq for Respondents Nos. 3 and

4. This is revision application which is directed against the impugned order, dated 31‑1‑1985 of learned 1st Additional District Judge, Karachi, whereby Appeal filed against the Order of refusal of grant of stay in the suit has been dismissed. It may be pointed out here that the learned counsel named above appearing for respondents are present because Preadmission Notices were issued to the respondents. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that applicant before me Mst. Humera Kalam had filed a suit in the Court of XXVIth Civil Judge, Karachi for recovery of title deeds, cancellation of documents and injunction. Her main grievance was that she has acquired a Flat on a long lease from K.D.A. and on her behalf the said lease was signed by her father and attorney Nural Hassan but somehow Messrs I . B . A . Enterprise and Bashir Ahmed, partner of that Enterprise, who are defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit, managed to get the lease‑deed and got deposited the same with United Bank through its Manager defendants 3 and 4 in the suit. While on one hand Messrs Humera Kalam wasp surprised as to how the title deed came to be in possession of the Bank and on the other hand, stand taken by the Bank and its Manager, who are defendants 3 and 4 in the suit is that the lease‑deed was mortgaged by Mrs. Humera Kalam with the Bank to secure huge advance made to Messrs United Sind Trading Co. , of which Mrs. Humera Kalam is one of the Directors. It is further the case of the Bank that Mrs. Humera Kalam herself has signed letter of guarantee in her personal capacity as well as memorandum of deposit of title deed. In such circumstances when application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C . P. C . was filed alongwith the plaint, notice was issued for hearing to the other side and in the meanwhile it was directed that status quo be maintained till the next date of hearing. Ultimately after hearing all the necessary parties, the learned trial Judge dismissed application for stay vide his order, dated 20‑1‑1980. Plea was taken on behalf of the plaintiff in the suit that at the relevant time she was not Director of Messrs United Sind Trading Company and in support of this contention, she produced an extract from the list of names of share‑holders of the said firm. The other side produced letter signed by the Chief Executive of the United Sind Trading Company showing Mrs. Humera Kalam as one of the Directors in the list. The Bank has also taken the plea that documents lying with them have been signed by Mrs. Humera Kalam herself but Mrs. Humera Kalam has denied those signatures. The learned trial Judge has held that these things could be sorted out subsequently at the stage when evidence is recorded and ultimately dismissed application for stay. The first appellate Court gave patient hearing to the counsel appearing for both parties and has written a detailed order. According to the first appellate Court, plaintiff in the suit has not made out prima facie case for grant of injunction. Documents produced by defendants in the suit indicated that Mrs. Humera Kalam was Director of United Sind Trading Company and signed letter of guarantee in her personal capacity to secure advance given by the Bank to the Company and she has also signed memorandum of deposit of title deeds created mortgage of her Flat. It is observed by the learned Appellate Judge that lease‑deed in question was duly mortgaged equitably by Mrs. Humera Kalam to secure the cash credit of Rs. 10,00,000 for United Sind Trading Co. Apart from this whatever other pleas and objections which are to be taken by the plaintiff in the suit, can be best appreciated at the time when the evidence is recorded. In the revision application the position before me is the same and the two Courts below have rightly held that in view of signed documents by the plaintiff in the suit, she is not entitled to the grant of stay and even if she denies having signed those documents, this assertion can be taken up for hearing at the proper stage of recording of evidence. The learned trial Judge had very rightly put reliance upon the case of Mst. Feroz Begum v. Mst. Amtul Farooq 1976 S C M R 291 Both Courts below have acted within their jurisdiction and no material illegality or irregularity has been alleged in this revision application. On the other hand, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for respondents before me that the Bank has filed a Suit No. 173 of 1980 in the Special Banking Court in which Mrs. Humera Kalam is a party and that suit was decreed on 30‑8‑1981 and in that suit final decree also has been passed on 7‑11‑1983. It is further stated that in such circumstances mortgage also has become part of the decree. In any case, so far this revision is concerned and the relevant facts as stated above, I am of the considered view that both Courts below have acted within jurisdiction and has passed the order which is strongly on merits and according to law. There is absolutely no reason for making any further interference. There is no ground for any further interference hence revision application is dismissed in limine. H . B . T . Revision dismissed.