ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Suit No.1137 of 2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURES OF JUDGE(S)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For hearing of CMA 6602/17
2. For hearing of CMA 11194/16
3. For orders on Nazir report dated 30.8.18
Dated: 31.08.2018
Mr. Shah Nawaz for plaintiff.
Syed Abdul Waheed for defendant No.2.
Defendants No. 3, 5 and 7 in person.
-.-.-
Learned counsel for defendant No.2 draws this Court’s attention to the Nazir report dated 30.08.2018 in terms of which the said defendant has deposited sum of Rs.56,964,286/- as balance sale consideration in respect of the property in question and states that this Court vide its order dated 28.05.2018 gave the said defendant last opportunity to make the balance payment as he had already paid share of the plaintiffs. This action however is opposed by defendants No.3, 5 and 7 present in person as well as principally by the plaintiff also who submits that the suit property was in fact auctioned in the year 2015 when the highest bid in the sum of Rs.7.25 Crores was received and the defendant No.2 proposed to match the bid and by way of first installment paid only plaintiff’s share and thereafter the remaining balance being paid on 30.08.2018, after a considerable delay, which is in violation of Order XXI Rule 84 CPC as well as prices prevailing now are considerably higher as compared to what was offered at that juncture and the delay which resulted in the increase of the price could not benefit the auction purchaser. He states that the interest of justice will only be served if the property is sold at the current market price so that all shareholders are equally benefited. The trouble in doing so is that the present was third attempt to have the property sold, and that at least four legal heirs are residing in the subject property, including auction purchaser/defendant No.2, therefore, if fair and highest market price is to be fetched, the property has to be offered with vacant physical possession to the bidders, which would require those residing in the property to vacate the same.
As these being legal heirs of deceased who died in the year 2000 and till date the share according to Shariah have not been paid the matter requires urgent attention. In these circumstances parties and their counsel are left with the following options:
a) Accept the present bid and distribute the shares;
b) Property be vacated and fresh bids be called;
c) If possible by law, have the property split in two equal parts; as it was seen that there are two groups of the legal heirs; and
d) A higher bid is offered with 25% advance money from any of the legal heirs, and that be acceptable to others.
As already said, since this is an old matter in which three attempts have been made earlier, it would be prudent to have this exercise completed expeditiously. The parties present state that if a week’s time is granted to them they would come up with a solution from those highlighted hereinabove or any other option they may chose to propose. Adjourned to 07.09.2018 at 10:00 a.m.
J U D G E