MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.- This civil revision assails order dated 14.4.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby application of the petitioner under Section 12(2), CPC was dismissed, being misconceived and devoid of force.
2. Precisely, relevant facts are that petitioner through Sh. Muhammad Akbar its proprietor, filed an application under Section 12(2), CPC against the order dated 26.1.2002 passed by the learned Additional district Judge, Lahore while executing decree in favour of Industrial Development Bank Limited passed against Mohib Exports Limited. The decree subject of execution had been passed for an amount of Rs.2,50,94,493.10, wherein National Bank of Pakistan Main Branch, Lahore filed an objection petition under Order XXI, Rule 58, CPC averring that certain finished material (gray cloth) owned by Mohib Exports Limited (the judgment-debtor) was pledged with National Bank of Pakistan, which was still lying under its lock and key in their godowns and the NBP having first charge against the pledged material (gray cloth) but inspite of it an order of auction of the. Said material, without impleading them as a party was illegal and mentioning of those material as Fard Taliqa filed in the execution petition was also unwarranted. National Bank of Pakistan prayed in the execution petition that sale of (gray cloth) in its custody may not be confirmed. This objection petition/application was conceded by the decree-holder through a statement of the learned counsel for the decree-holder dated 26.1.2002. In view of concessional statement of the decree- holder, the executing Court de-attached the gray cloth in the godowns of the judgment-debtor under lock and key of the National Bank of Pakistan and accepted the objection petition filed by the NBP.
3. Petitioner claimed that after de-attached by the executing Court, Mohib Exports Limited agreed to sell the released stock to the petitioner with the concurrence of the National Bank of Pakistan for discharging liability towards it, outstanding against the Judgment-debtor. Petitioner claimed that he paid the entire price to the judgment-debtor of the gray cloth thus the order dated 26.1..20O2 was prayed to be rescinded.
4. Petitioner's application was resisted by the National Bank of Pakistan on the ground that gray cloth which was pledged with NBP, was released under the orders of this Court dated 31.7.2002 passed in C.M. No. 769-B/OT and C.M. 145-B/02, hence the executing Court (Additional District Judge) had no jurisdiction tc entertain application of the petitioner. Locus standi of the petitioner, to file any application before the executing Court was also denied with the assertion that petitioner is neither a borrower nor he. Has any agreement with the decree-holder. The claimed agreement to sell dated ,18.4.2000 between the petitioner and Mohib Exports Limited was claimed to be void and not enforceable at law. Learned Additional District Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the application of the petitioner vide order dated 14.4.2004 with a view that petitioner did not bring any document on the file to prove that NBP was party to the agreement or had it concerned to the agreement between the petitioner and Mohib Exports Limited (judgment-debtor).
5. Heard. Record perused. Pending main petition under Section 12(2), CPC, petitioner filed an application for framing of issues over the controversy canvassed by it. National Bank of Pakistan filed a. Reply to this application and in its para. 2 on merits, it admitted the settlement package between the petitioner and NBP. Reply by the National Bank of Pakistan, in para. 2, reads as under:- "Admitted to the extent that settlement package was approved, settling the liability of M/s. Mohib Exports but it was in respect of total liability and that settlement package has to be implemented in full force because principle of approbation and reprobation has been condemned by the apex Court of Pakistan hence there is not question of freezing the outstanding liability."
Besides this admission there are three delivery orders issued by the Bank on 12.5.2000, 25.4.2000 and 2.5.2000 granting delivery of the gray cloth to Al- Barkat Industrial Corporation Limited on behalf of Mohib Exports Limited. Though these three delivery orders have been claimed to be fictitious by the Bank, yet these prima facie show that there was material on the file showing concurrence to the sale asserted by the petitioner which has been admitted in the above- referred reply. There is yet another letter by the National Bank of Pakistan Main Branch, Shahra-e-Quaid- e- Azam, Lahore, dated 18.2.2000 addressed to General Manager, Mohib Exports Limited, in response to letter of the addressee No. LH-1/FIN/99, dated 23.12.1999; concluding para, of which reads as under:- "You are requested to please sell the pledged stocks at Rs.11.222(M) and ensure payment of instalments on due dates and send us acceptance of this sanction letter duly signed by the authorized persons.
Yours faithfully".
Though learned counsel for the National Bank of Pakistan has attempted to demonstrate that this permission was conditional and was subject to four conditions detailed in the same letter, but it clearly shows that National Bank of Pakistan was party to the transaction.
6. For the reasons noted above, finding of the learned Additional District Judge that petitioner did not produce any material showing that NBP was party to the deal between it and Mohib Exports Limited, stands, falsified. To my mind, whether permission granted by the National Bank of Pakistan to Mohib Exports Limited to sell out the stocks in its godowns, which was de- attached by the executing Court, conditionally or unconditionally, the delivery orders, dated 25.4.2000, 2.5.2000 and 12.5.2000 are genuine or otherwise and whether admission of the National Bank of Pakistan in its reply to the application filed by -the petitioner for framing of issues amounted to participation of the Bank in the negotiations asserted by the petitioner, required determination by the Court. I have avoided to give any definite finding lest the same may not prejudice the mind of the Court, but at the same time, there -is no doubt about the fact that dispute requires deeper appreciation and determination in accordance with law.
7. The order impugned dated 14.4.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, on the face of it, rs tainted with material irregularities and illegalities, envisaged by Section 115, CPC, for the reasons noted above, thus the same is not maintainable at law. Hence, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 14.4.2004 is set aside with the result that the petitioner's petition will be deemed to be pending and shall be decided afresh, in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge on 27.9.2004. There will be no order as to costs.