ࡱ> MPL[ $bjbj ;:ΐΐY589<u%+%-%-%-%-%-%-%$f'*Q%Q%f%X+%+%V"@### %|%0%/#x*b*##*#\Q%Q%@~%* : ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI A No 09/2011 _______________________________________________________________ ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ________________________________________________________________ For katcha peshi. 28.08.2014 Mr. Abdul Majeed for the appellant Mrs. Seema Waseem for the respondents O R D E R MUHAMMAD JUNAID GHAFFAR, J:- Through instant appeal, the appellant has impugned the order dated 25-11-2010 passed by the learned Banking Court No. I, at Karachi in Suit No.1246/2009, whereby, an application Under Section 151, 152 read with Section 153 CPC seeking correction in the plaint, judgment and decree regarding the total area of the property mortgaged by the respondents has been dismissed. 2. Briefly the facts as stated in the memo of appeal are that the respondents had mortgaged the property bearing No.ST-1-B, KDA Scheme No.1, Jamshed Town, Karachi, and had obtained a finance facility from the appellant. Subsequently, the respondents had defaulted, whereafter, the appellant filed a recovery Suit bearing No.1246/2009 before the Banking Court No.1, Karachi, and vide Judgment dated 14-01-2010; suit has been decreed in favor of the appellant. The appellant in the plaint filed before the learned Banking Court had stated the area of the mortgaged property as 730 sq. yds, whereas, according to the appellant, total area of the Mortgaged property is 1072 sq. yds. On detection of such mistake, an application for correction in the plaint, Judgment and decree was filed before the learned Banking Court which has been dismissed. The appellant has impugned the said order through instant appeal. 3. Learned Counsel or the appellant contended that the respondents had mortgaged the property by surrendering the Original Lease Deed along with Deed of Addenda, wherein, it has been categorically stated that the said property constituted a total area of 730 sq. yds leased in the name of respondent No.2 vide Lease Deed, registration No.1888, pages 173 to 177, Volume-397, Book-I, Addl, Sub-Registrar T-Div-XI dated 28.07.1994 alongwith allotment of extra land measuring 342 sq. yds vide letter No. CDGK/GR No.544/2004 dated 5th October, 2004 comprising a total area 1072 sq. yds in respect of the same property. Per learned Counsel due to inadvertence, at the time of filing the suit an area of 730 sq. yds was mentioned in the plaint, whereas, the total area of the property in question is 1072 sq yds as per the Original Lease Deed. Learned Counsel further submits that in the Deed of Addenda, Mortgage Deed as well as permission to Mortgage issued by the office of the Deputy District Officer, Land (Revenue) Jamshed Town, Karachi, the total area of the property in question has been shown as 1072 Sq. yds, and not 730 Sq.Yds. Learned Counsel further contended that the number of the property is same and it is not possible that only a part of the property having 730 sq. yds could have been mortgaged. In view of such position, learned Counsel contended that the learned Banking Court has erred in dismissing the application for correction of the area in the plaint, Judgment and Decree, as the property cannot be auctioned without such correction. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the appellant may be directed to produce the Original Mortgage Deed, as according to the learned Counsel, there is some over writing in the said Deed with regard to the total area of the property. However, the learned Counsel for the respondents could not controvert that the property in question was mortgaged by surrendering the title documents including the Lease Deed and the Deed of Addenda. Learned Counsel on a query by this Court has admitted that the property number is same in respect of both the leases. 5. Record shows that the respondents had mortgaged the residential property bearing Plot No.ST-1/B, KDA Scheme No.1, Jamshed Town, and Karachi. The respondent No.2 is a partner/mortgager/guarantor on behalf of the respondent No.1 in the instant matter and had surrendered the property documents for obtaining the finance facility from the appellant. It further appears that initially the respondent No.2 was granted lease of the plot having an area of 730 sq. yds through lease deed duly registered vide No.1888, pages 173 to 177, Volume No.397, Book No.I Addl, Sub-Registrar T-Div-XI dated 28.07.1994 and subsequently was also allotted an extra land measuring 342 sq. yds by the City District Government, (KDA Wing) Karachi vide letter dated 05.10.2004 which had increased the total area of the property in question to 1072 sq.yds. Such disclosure of additional area is recorded in the Deed of Addenda dated 26-11-2005 as well as in the Mortgage Deed dated 21-02-2006 available at page 81 of the file. The Mortgage Deed signed by the respondent No.2 has a categorical disclosure with regard to the total area of the plot as 1072 sq. yds (730 sq.yds +342 sq.yds) acquired through Lease Deed dated 28.07.1994 as well as the Deed of Addenda registered on 26.11.2005 in respect of the property in question. 6. After having gone through the record placed before us, it appears that the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is correct and the learned Baking Court ought to have allowed the application for correction in Judgment and Decree passed in the instant matter for the simple reason that the Suit filed by the appellant was on the basis of Mortgage Documents which includes the Original Lease Deed, Mortgage Deed and the Search Certificate. The Learned Banking Court is not required to decree the Suit merely on the basis of the averments in the Plaint, rather has to examine the material and documents placed before it which includes the Lease Deed as well as the Mortgage Deed. In the instant matter the Mortgage Deed signed by the borrower very clearly states that the total area of the property is 1072 Sq. Yds which has been acquired on the basis of Lease Deed dated 28.07.1994 and letter dated 05.10.2004 issued by the City District Government, Karachi; hence any mistake of declaring the area of the property in the plaint due to inadvertence is liable to be corrected insofar as the judgment and Decree passed by the learned Banking Court is concerned as it will not amount to re-appraisal of the evidence or review of the decision on merits. It is not the case of the respondents that they have mortgaged a part of the property comprising only 730 Sq. Yds as the property in question is one bearing No.ST-1/B, KDA Scheme No.1, Jamshed Town, Karachi, therefore, we are of the view that the instant appeal merits consideration and is accordingly allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 25-11-2010. Consequently, the application filed before the learned Banking Court under section 151, 152 read with section 153 CPC seeking correction in the total area of the plot from 730 sq. yds to 1072 sq. yds is allowed and the judgment dated 04.01.2010 and Decree dated 25.01.2010 passed by the learned Banking Court stands corrected in the aforesaid terms. The learned Banking Court is directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. JUDGE JUDGE Talib      PAGE \* ROMAN \* MERGEFORMAT IV  29>@M O U _ ` a b c d ~  񻜍~kXkHhBhB5CJOJQJaJ%h)h)56>*CJOJQJaJ%h)hB56>*CJOJQJaJh)5>*CJOJQJaJhB5>*CJOJQJaJ"hBhB5>*CJOJQJaJh)>*CJOJQJaJh)CJOJQJaJh)5CJOJQJaJh IH5CJOJQJaJh Ph)5CJOJQJaJh Ph)CJOJQJaJ 2@   * R U ` a b  $da$gdUgdr]`gd)gd)$a$gd) & Fgd)gd)gd) J P d l ~ A B    . 6 C k   [ f &,>  su͵ٵhkCJOJQJaJh( CJOJQJaJh LCJOJQJaJh)CJOJQJaJhUCJOJQJaJhs CJOJQJaJhBCJOJQJaJhBhBCJOJQJaJ>wx:=Po2Q=ERS3;ܴܴh}=CJOJQJaJhkCJOJQJaJhkCJOJQJaJhxNCJOJQJaJh}CJOJQJaJh Lh LCJH*OJQJaJh)CJOJQJaJh( CJOJQJaJh LCJOJQJaJ8$$$8$9$F$G$N$O$X$Y$[$\$^$_$a$b$d$e$gdU $  a$gdk$  da$gdk $da$gd L"7;AFWX]^i{|Q]^>ANRZ^eg^f DЬĬЬܬܬĬܬܬܬܬܬh}=CJOJQJaJhG6CJOJQJaJheCJOJQJaJhs CJOJQJaJh}CJOJQJaJhkCJOJQJaJhkCJOJQJaJhxNCJOJQJaJh IHCJOJQJaJ:DHlw  y ~ ! !&!(!Q!R!U!V!a"d""""".#=#H#Y#d#k#r##########$$$$踬ĸĸЬииܠh!5gCJOJQJaJh}=CJOJQJaJhmS^CJOJQJaJh$\CJOJQJaJh$?CJOJQJaJh IHCJOJQJaJheCJOJQJaJhkCJOJQJaJhkCJOJQJaJ:$$-$1$7$8$E$F$G$M$N$O$W$Y$Z$\$]$_$`$b$c$e$f$$$$ʾ񢘎|x|x|x|xlhlS(hoBhoBB*CJaJmHnHphOuhUjhUCJUaJh)SGjh)SGUhFOJQJaJh*[6OJQJaJh&OJQJaJh!5ghB%YOJQJaJhI_hmS^CJOJQJaJhmS^CJOJQJaJh&CJOJQJaJh!5gCJOJQJaJhI_hB%YCJOJQJaJhI_h&CJOJQJaJ$$$$$$$h*[6OJQJaJh)SGh|hUhUhUB*CJaJphO1jhUhUB*CJUaJmHnHphOue$$$$$$$a$9 0&P1h:poB/ N!@ "#$@ % ^ 02 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~_HmH nH sH tH D`D r]NormalCJOJQJ_HmH sH tH @@@ ) Heading 1$$@&a$5>*>@> ) Heading 2$$@&a$5DA D Default Paragraph FontViV  Table Normal :V 44 la (k (No List 4>`4 r]Title$a$5CJH/H r] Title Char5OJQJ_HmH sH tH L L F Balloon TextOJQJaJmHsHtHN/!N FBalloon Text CharCJOJQJ^JaJ@`2@ U0Header  H$ mHsHtH:/A: U0 Header Char CJOJQJ@ R@ UFooter  H$ mHsHtH:/a: U Footer Char CJOJQJFqF )Heading 1 Char5>*CJOJQJDD )Heading 2 Char5CJOJQJPK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$yi};~@(Hu* Dנz/0ǰ $ X3aZ,D0j~3߶b~i>3\`?/[G\!-Rk.sԻ..a濭?PK!֧6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/}(h"O = C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlYOo6w toc'vuر-MniP@I}úama[إ4:lЯGRX^6؊>$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3ڗP 1Pm \\9Mؓ2aD];Yt\[x]}Wr|]g- eW )6-rCSj id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q%p%m&]caSl=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ.uχYC6OMf3or$5NHT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R3U~7+׸#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vpIYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07%<ҍPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK]  : 444447 D$$$e$$ -07!8@0(  B S  ?YY[[\\^_abde |~ YY[[\\^_abde333389&,>RZ  "AF]^i||RZ^eDH cdkrXYY[[\\^_abde89&,>  "AF]^i||RZ^eDH cdkrh v |-jB/Cc6 80^8`0o(. ^`hH. pL^p`LhH. @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PL^P`LhH.0^`0o(. ^`hH.  L ^ `LhH.   ^ `hH. xx^x`hH. HLH^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.^`o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.Cc|-h %        q                 uQPFrs 6 b 7&E+zN$a' G+-/04*[65N>wa@)SG IHXH LQL1OIqOJWB%Ym[$\r]mS^ef!5gl5hPh~iYj@~%}=BoBnI_kVj_`<}BLhUf)hZ( $?Qe!ae'S &yG6k`3|"NCP,JxNY[@h@UnknownG*Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3. *Cx ArialK,Bookman Old Style?1Draft 10cpi5. .[`)TahomaA$BCambria Math"1ho(*)( 2;3;3@ 4KK2QHP ?r]2!xx%IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHInasirJunaid Ghaffar   Oh+'0 $ D P \ ht|(IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHInasirNormalJunaid Ghaffar10Microsoft Office Word@#@3@}.@PU ;՜.+,0  hp|  shc3K &IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI Title  !"#$%'()*+,-./0123456789:;=>?@ABCEFGHIJKNORRoot Entry FQData 1Table&*WordDocument ;:SummaryInformation(<DocumentSummaryInformation8DMsoDataStorePN3B4HOEKDTT5ZVQ==2PNItem  PropertiesUCompObj y   F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q