1996 PLP 811 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑S.42‑‑‑House Building Finance Corporation Act (XVIII of 1952), S.24(3)‑‑. Interim order‑‑‑Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of documents‑‑‑Plaintiff was ordered to pay court‑fee on basis of sale consideration on account of which he was claiming declaration and cancellation of documents‑‑‑Validity‑‑Defendants' objection for non‑maintainability of revision in terms of S.24(c), House Building Finance Corporation Act, 1952‑‑‑Section 24(c) of the House Building Finance Corporation Act, 1952, however; could not be limited to revision, appeal etc. therefore, it would not be proper to invoke the same for purpose of opposing interim order, when revision was already admitted‑‑‑Interim order was granted in terms of prayer but affected party would be at liberty to move any application before Trial Court and order passed in revision would not prejudice any such application if filed. Ainuddin Khan for Applicant. M. Aslam Butt for Respondent No.5. The background of this revision as stated by the learned counsel for the applicant and admitted by the learned counsel for respondent No.5 can be summarised as under. The property bearing Flat No.B‑1 First Floor, situated at Paramid Plaza, F.B. Area, Karachi, originally belonged to respondent No.1 (Bashir Ahmad). Respondent No.1 gave this property to respondent No. 2 and respondent No.2 had entered into sale agreement with the present applicant Muhammad Sabir by executing power of attorney in his favour. The possession of the property was also handed over to the applicant. After some time the respondent No.2 entered into new sale agreement with respondent No.3 (Aslam Pervez Khan) and also executed sub‑power of attorney in favour of Irshad Khan who is respondent No.4. The second agreement of sale forced the present applicant to file suit before the learned 3rd Senior Civil Judge, Central Karachi for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of these documents. Objections were filed on behalf of respondent No.3 in whose name the second sale agreement was executed by respondent No.2 with the prayer that the Court be pleased to order payment of court‑fees by moving application under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. Learned Senior Civil Judge directed the applicant to pay court -fee on basis of these objections and also on the basis of sale consideration which was amounting to Rs.1,17,

000. Against the said order i.e. 17‑2‑1993 the present revision was filed before this Court which was admitted on 6‑11‑1994 and the notice was issued to the respondents for C.M.A. 802 of 1994. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 (HBFC) has referred section 24(3) of HBFC Act for non‑maintainability of this revision. I think that the said section cannot be limited to revision appeal or to any suit at any stage. Admittedly no application was moved before the trial Judge. On the basis of this section, therefore, it may not be proper to invoke this section for the purpose of opposing the stay when the revision is already admitted. I, therefore, allow this application as prayed. However, learned counsel for respondent No.5 would be at liberty to move any suit before the trial Court and this order will not prejudice to this application, The application stands disposed of. A.A./M-4/K Order accordingly.