Mst. NAGHAT NASEEM vs PAKISTAN EMPLOYEES' COOPERATIVE HOUSING
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the order of the Sindh High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking enforcement of a 1972 consent decree. The petitioner claimed ownership of Plot No. 301-C in the Pakistan Employees' Cooperative Housing Society, Karachi, based on a decree making an arbitration award a rule of the court. The High Court had non-suited the petitioner on the ground of a discrepancy in the plot number described in the decree. The petitioner contended that the High Court misread the record, as the property list in the decree explicitly mentioned the plot. Additionally, the petitioner argued that the original owner was not a 'specified person' under the Abandoned Properties (Taking Over and Management) Act, 1975. The Supreme Court, finding a fit case, granted leave to appeal and suspended the operation of the impugned High Court order. A separate application for impleadment by a subsequent purchaser was rejected as he was not a party to the original proceedings and purchased the property pendente lite.
- Whether a High Court's dismissal of a writ petition seeking enforcement of a decree based on an alleged discrepancy in property description constitutes a misreading of the record when the property is explicitly listed elsewhere in the decree?
- Whether a deceased person who held Pakistani nationality and died in London can be classified as a 'specified person' under the Abandoned Properties (Taking Over and Management) Act, 1975?
- Can a third-party purchaser who acquired property pendente lite be impleaded as a party to a civil petition for leave to appeal if they were not a party to the original decree or the writ proceedings?
- Section 2(a), Abandoned Properties (Taking Over and Management) Act 1975
- Section 2(f), Abandoned Properties (Taking Over and Management) Act 1975
ORDER
' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.-- Petitioner is aggrieved by Sindh High Court order dated 10-5-2006 whereby her writ petition, seeking enforcement of High Court decree, dated 12-4-1972 passed in Suit No,104 of 1972 was sought to be enforced against the respondents.
2. Petitioner claims to be the owner of Plot No,301-C measuring 105 square yards situated in Central Commercial Area, P.E.C.H. Society, Karachi on the basis of decree, dated 12-4-1972 making award of the sole Arbitrator a rule of the Court, which appears to be a family settlement and arrangement by consent amongst the petitioner and other legal heirs of deceased Muhammad Siddique Chawla, who died in London on 28-11-1969.
3. High Court has non-suited the petitioner on the simple ground that she has claimed Plot No,301- C whereas the decree at Serial No,7, page 46 of the paper, incorporates Plot No,105 worth Rs,17,325 having been given to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel has urged that in the list of properties in, the decree at page No,45 of the paper book Plot No,301 measuring 105 square yards valued Rs,17,325 is expressly mentioned and the High'
Court suffered from misreading of record by heavily relying upon contents of para.VII of the decree at page 46 of the paper book. On merits, it is urged that late Muhammad Siddique Chawla was neither a specified person within the meaning of section 2(a) and (f) of the Abandoned Properties (Taking Over and Management)' Act, 1975 nor even he ever migrated to Bangladesh as for all practical purposes he lived all along at Karachi, held Pakistan nationality and Passport and died in London as is evident from the record.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that a fit case for grant of leave is made out. We . Operation of the impugned order shall remain suspended till the hearing of the appeal.
' C.M.A. No,507-K of 2006
6. Through this C.M.A. Applicant Habibur Rehman seeks an order for impleadment as party to the C.P.L.A. On the premises that he has purchased the property involved in the petition from respondent No,2 Gohar Naeem Khan through registered sale-deed. As the petitioner was not a party in the proceedings to the decree as well as the writ petition before the High Court and he has purchased property during pendency of litigation, we do not find it necessary to implead him as party to the proceedings. His prayer is, therefore, rejected.