This is an application for review of our order dated 3-10-2001. The facts in brief appear to be that the petitioner had contended that he had purchased a plot of land bearing No,R-6, Sector 33-B, Korangi Township, measuring about 120 sq. yards, from one Muhammad Suleman through Registered Indenture of Lease dated 23-2-2000. It is recorded in the aforesaid lease that vendor Muhammad Suleman had acquired the said plot from the respondent through a Registered Lease Deed dated 29-1-2000. The petitioner thereafter moved the respondent for mutation of his name in the record of rights and his application appears to have been received on 14-2-2000 and mutation fee was deposited by him on 28-4-2001. Nevertheless, the concerned officers of the respondent failed to effect mutation whereupon the petitioner moved this Court for appropriate directions through this petition. The matter appeared simple enough and after having admitted the petition, we fixed it for regular hearing on 3-10-2001. On that date Mr. Ali Azam, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent. We asked learned counsel to explain that when the law attached a certain sanctity to duly registered document involving transfer of property on what conceivable grounds could the respondent No,1 refuse to honour them. He was unable to justify the conduct/inaction of , the respondent and we accordingly allowed the petition directing the respondent to cause necessary mutation. The grounds for review urged in the application are that:--
(a) Mr. Ali Azam, Advocate was not authorized to argue the case as neither the Court papers nor comments were in his hand; and
(b) That the plot in question had never been allotted by the K.D.A.
2. Application is supported by the personal affidavit of Mr. Muzaffar Imam, Advocate, who stated that he was on general adjournment and Mr. Ali Azam was not authorized to argue the case as well as an affidavit of Mr. Ali Azam to the effect that he got confused and inadvertently made statement before the Court though neither Court papers nor comments had been received by him. In the parawise comments which appear to have been filed more than 2 months after the final order was passed contained allegation that the plot in question was never allotted by the respondent and the allotment order was passed under forged signatures.
3. As regards the first ground we have noticed that Vakalatnam a on behalf of the respondent not merely contains the name of Mr. Ali Azam, but has also been duly signed by him in addition to have been signed by Mr. Muzaffar Imam, Advocate. We failed to see how a party could be allowed to raise a plea that duly enrolled Advocate in whose favour a Vakalatnama has been executed and who had presented the same in Court after having signed it was not authorized to plead for such party. It becomes all the more disconcerting when a Senior Advocate chooses to file his personal affidavit in support of such a frivolous plea. In any event while we can acknowledge that Mr. Ali Azam might have made some statement in a state of confusion which he did not intend to make we feel it proper to clarify that our observations in the order dated 3-10-2001 were not premised on a mere concession by Mr. Ali Azam but upon our own understanding of the law and the concession, even if given inadvertently was inconsequential. No ground for review of the order on this basis is made out.
4. As regards the second contention it might be observed that even if the plea that the original lease in favour of Muhammad Suleman was not executed by the respondent but was a forged document is accepted, the respondent could always seek its cancellation under section 39 of the Specific Relief Act. Mr. Muzaffar Imam argued that K.D.A. could not do so through filing a civil suit because it had not been duly executed by any officer of the K.D.A. The argument is ex facie untenable as section 39 enables any person apprehending that a written instrument, which is void or voidable, and if left outstanding may cause him serious injury to approach a competent Court for getting the document so adjudged. Admittedly the petitioner had moved an application for effecting mutation in his name as early as on 14-2-2001 and at least from that 'date, if not an earlier one the respondent could have sought cancellation of the document. Nevertheless, the respondent could not arrogate to itself the power to refuse to honour a document of title to immovable property by simply alleging that it was forged. Moreover, it has been contended that mutation in the name of Muhammad Suleman was in fact effected on the basis of the very same document.
Therefore, we find no merit in this review application and dismiss the same with costs.