2009 PLP 825 (YLR)

NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.

By this application the plaintiff has prayed for decree on admission. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that in para.30 of the plaint in Suit No. B-34/08, filed by the present defendants 1 to 10, the said defendants have admitted the sale of the suit properties as well as execution of the three agreements by them. He then submits that defendants have also admitted the execution of tripartite agreement as well as the mutation and amalgamation of the suit plots. He, therefore, requests for passing of decree on admission under Order XII, rule 6, C.P.C. Defendants have not filed any counter affidavit to the listed application. Learned counsel for the said defendants admits and confirms the statements made by counsel for the plaintiff and endorses his no objection to the passing of a declare on admission in respect of prayer clauses (a) to (c) of the prayer clause. He submits that in view of the grant of the prayer clauses (a) to (c), the other reliefs claimed would become infructuous. I have perused para. 30 of the plaint in Suit No.B-34/08 filed by the said defendants, which reads as under:- "That the defendant represented to the plaintiffs that they would accept Rs.222,000,000 in full adjustment of the claim towards outstanding against the plaintiffs by the defendant as sale price of the two mortgaged properties of the plaintiffs namely (I) Industrial Plot of Land No.C/25, measuring 0.81 acres bearing Survey Sheet No.35/L/13 together with all building/structure/sheds/ boundary walls and all standing thereon, situated in Sindh Industrial Trading Estate Area, Trans Lyari Quarters, Karachi and (ii) Industrial Plot of Land No. C/25-B, measuring 1.43 acres bearing Survey Sheet No.35/L/13 together with all building/structure/sheds/ boundary walls and all standing thereon, situated in Sindh Industrial Trading Estate Area, Trans Lyari Quarters, Karachi to be sold by mutual agreement to Messrs Meezan Bank Limited (the "purchase"). The defendant received 10% down payment from the purchaser being an amount of Rs.222,000,000 (sic) being 10% of the purchase price. The plaintiffs and Meezan Bank Limited took steps towards further implemention of the tripartite agreement inter alia vide letter of SITE for mutation and amalgamation of said mortgaged plots dated 18-12-2007 and letter of Meezan Bank Limited to the defendant dated 24-12-2007 for issuance of charge vacation certificate." From perusal of the above quoted para 30 of the plaint in Suit No.B-34/08, it appears that the plaintiffs in that suit, who are the said defendants in this suit, have admitted the sale of the suit properties to the plaintiff in this suit. And, accordingly, learned counsel for the plaintiff has moved the listed application for decree on admission under order XII, rule 6, C.P.C. Mr. Asif Mehmood, learned counsel for defendant No.11 states that at the time of finalization of the sale of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff the plaintiff may be directed to pay the balance amount of sale consideration to the defendant No.11 Soneri Bank. In terms of the Tripartite Agreement executed between the parties, Mr. Kazim Hassan has no objection to this request. Mr. Kazim Hassan states that as per terms of the partnership agreement filed as annexure "A" to this Suit, defendant No.3 is also liable for the liabilities of the partnership firm, being defendant No.1 herein, and requests that the suit may also be decreed against defendant No.3 in above terms. He prays that the suit may be dismissed as withdrawn against defendants 11 and

12. Order accordingly. Both the parties have agreed that the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff will be executed within a week from today failing which the Nazir will execute the same at the cost of the plaintiff. Rule 6 of Order VII, C.P.C. enables a Court upon application by either party to dispose of such part of the suit with regard to which there is no dispute between the parties. It is however to be seen that an admission must be clear, unambiguous, unqualified and unequivocal. In view of the above position the suit of the plaintiff is decreed on admission of Defendants Nos.1, 2, and 4 to 10 in terms of clauses (a).to (c) of the plaint with the above observations. The suit is also decreed against defendant No.3 in the above terms as in spite of service of notice he did not participate in the proceedings. The suit stands dismissed as withdrawn as against defendants Nos. 11 and

12. The parties are left to bear their own cost. Decree may be prepared in the above terms. S.A.K./M-26/K Suit decreed.