1. ' This is an application under section 151, C.P.C. Filed by the judgment-debtors praying therein that the judgment-debtors be allowed to sell/dispose of their property/commercial building bearing No,A-40, situated at K.C.H.U., Karachi as well as a portion of property bearing No,58/2, in Deh Barroot, Tehsil Hub, District Lasbela, Baluchistan, and the decree-holder be directed to release the original documents of the said properties for the said purpose, and consider the amount deposited by the buyer with the decree-holder bank directly, as adjustment against the instalments. This application is supported by an affidavit filed by Mian Absar Akhtar one of the judgment-debtors.
2. ' Counter-affidavit to this application has been filed on behalf of the decree-holder bank stating therein that this application is not maintainable and has been filed by the judgment-debtors only to delay the payment of instalment which is due on 17-8-2004 as per agreement dated 17-2-2004.
3. It has been further stated that as per Para (vi) of the agreement dated 17-2-2004 through which relief was granted, to the judgment-debtors as per negotiations, in the light of Circular No,29 of the State Bank of Pakistan, the title deeds in respect of the properties are to be released together, only if the instalment payments have been made as contracted herein. It is further stated that such request made by the judgment-debtors vide their letter dated 5-4-2004 was referred to the executive committee of the plaintiff/decreeholder bank who after due consideration has rejected the said proposal made by the judgment-debtors ' specifically relying upon terms of agreement dated 17-2-2004. As per terms of the agreement, the defendant/judgment-debtor has to pay a sum of Rs.49,327 million in 12 instalments and in the event of default the entire decretal amount of Rs.97,119,206.46 along with mark-up at the specified rate is to be paid by the judgment-debtor to the decree-holder bank. The said application has been termed to be an attempt to delay the payment of instalments on the part of the judgment-debtor.
4. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Khurshid Ahmed, Executive Vice-President, Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. Is also present who was called to appear in person and explain if the decree- holder/bank was agreeable to any such proposal, but he has shown his inability to concede to any such request, which has already been declined by the Executive Committee of the Bank.
5. ' Ms. Sofia Saeed learned counsel for the judgment-debtor has argued that in lieu of the said properties for which permission is being sought to dispose of, the judgment-debtors are ready to deposit the title deeds of their another property known as Karachi House which is of more value, and that no prejudice will be caused to the decree-holder as the sale proceeds of the said two properties proposed to be sold shall be received by them directly from the purchaser who has agreed to pay Rs.1.12 million for the said properties being its forced value under the circumstances.
6. She has further argued that at one hand it will facilitate the judgment-debtor in making payment of further instalments and on the other the interest of the decree-holder shall not be adversely affected in any manner.
7. ' Mr. Asim Mansoor Khan learned counsel for the decree-holder bank has vehemently urged that as per para (vi) of the terms and conditions of the agreement referred to above all the title documents of the three properties which include the present two properties as well, are to be returned only if the instalment payments have been made as contracted. Learned counsel has further argued hat the price for which the said two properties are proposed to be sold is not the actual price and the judgment-debtor wants to take advantage of the difference between the price actually settled by them with the proposed purchaser and the amount which they propose to deposit directly with the bank. He has further argued that in case the said properties are sold for Rs.1.12 million which apparently is much less than the actual market price, the only property left behind shall not be sufficient security as against the decretal amount which may rise to more than Rs.117 million in case of default which is likely to be made under the circumstances. Learned counsel has further argued that the other property know as "Karachi House" which according to judgment- debtor is of more value of which the title documents, the judgment-debtor propose to deposit with the decree-holder can be disposed of by which shall be helpful to them in making payments of the instalment without any complications.
8. ' I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as a result whereof a settlement was arrived at between the parties. According to such agreement relief under BPD Circular No,29 of State Bank of Pakistan dated 15-10-2002 was granted to the judgment-debtors, and as against Rs.117 million they were asked to pay only 49.327 million for which all the judgment-debtors jointly and severally agreed to pay. Clause (vi) of the terms and conditions as agreed upon by the parties clearly shows that the properties as mentioned in the schedule including the present properties stand duly mortgaged with the decree-holder bank and the title deeds are to be released in respect of all the properties together only if the instalment payments have been made as per terms of the contract. Since the decree- holder bank has declined to accept the proposal made on behalf of the judgment-debtors through this application and do not want to deviate from the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 17-2-2004, hence this application has no merits and dismissed accordingly. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.