ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Execution No.60 of 2017

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATE                  ORDER WITH SIGNATURES OF JUDGE(S)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. For orders on Nazir report dated 26.5.2018

2. For orders on Nazir report dated 12.0.6.2018 presented on 29.6.18

3. For hearing of CMA 564/17

Dated: 29.08.2018

Mr. Muhammad Nouman Jamali for decree holder.

Mr. Shoukat Ali But for judgment debtor No.2.

.

-.-.-

1/2)     Through these reports Nazir has brought to surface that the properties bearing House No. 236 and 237 have in fact been partly used as residential and commercial purposes. It appears that he is facing difficulties in attaching the entire building built on these two plots located in Qasimabad Sindhi Hotel, Timber Market, Liaquatabad, Karachi.

Learned counsel for decree holder draws Court’s attention to the indenture of leases in respect of these two properties available at pages 35 and 39 to show that they are unitary properties and not subdivided, therefore, attempts made by the regulatory authority to portray these plots having more than one leases separately in respect of ground floor, first and second floor is futile in the particular circumstances when this Court has already passed an order for the attachment of these properties in lumpsum. Let whatever is built on these two plots be attached in toto. Nazir to file further report in this regard.

3)         `Through this application objections are filed by the judgment debtor No.2 alleging that the judgment and decree was obtained fraudulently and a request is made for the dismissal of the instant proceedings. Counsel for decree holder to that effect has brought to attention of this Court that a J.M. was filed under section 12(2) CPC against the judgment and decree which however was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 23.04.2018, copy of which is placed on record by the learned counsel. He states that in these circumstances the objections are not tenable. The contention of learned counsel for decree holder is worth considering as the judgment debtor has already filed a 12(2) application and chose not to press the same, therefore, they (judgment debtors) cannot be given repeated opportunities to stall these proceedings. This application accordingly stands dismissed.

                                                                                    J U D G E