1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned Single Judge in the Sind High Court whereby it was clarified as to which properties would be sold in execution of a money decree passed against the petitioner.
2. The petitioner claims to have purchased an evacuee property known as Raja Mansion in 1959-60 through a P. T. O. He mortgaged with the National Bank of Pakistan respondent No. 1, a part of so purchased property (No. R. C. 8/7/1/1 (part) and R. C. 8/7/1/A (part), consisting of 66 flats against loan advanced to him by the said respondent. It is admitted by him that he paid back a part of the loan, but thereafter defaulted with regard to the remaining amount. Respondent 'No. 1 filed a suit against him on the original side in the High Court of Sind for the recovery of the balance amount and obtained a decree. On Execution Application No. 84 of 1972, auction of mortgaged flats comprising of two numbers (8/7/2/1/1 and 8/7/I/A) was ordered. The Chief Settlement Commissioner respondent No. 2 filed an objection Application No. 572 of 1973 requesting the postponement of the sale of property bearing Nos. R. C. 8/7/1-A, 8/7/1-B, 8/7/1-C, 8,17/1-D and 8/7/2/1/1. The petitioner resisted the said application. On 31st March, 175, a learned Single Judge ordered that the decree-- holder was at liberty to sell those properties of the petitioner which were not the subject-matter of the application filed by respondent No. 2 (572 of 1973). When the decree- holder wanted to include property No. R-C 8/7/1-A to the auction, the petitioner raised objection that this property number being exempted under the order of the Court dated the 31st of March, 1975, the same could not be auctioned. The controversy ultimately came before the same learned Judge who had passed the said order and was disposed of by him on 9-2-1977 through the order which has been impugned in this petition. At an earlier hearing the learned Judge noted that the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 had appearedand made it clear that the intervenor was only objecting to the property bearing No. 8/7/2/1/1 and it was, therefore that, liberty was given to the decree-holder to continue its execution in respect of other properties". Even on the day of hearing when the learned Judge passed the impugned order, Mr. Munshi, the learned counsel for the intervenor, "confirmed this position". The learned Judge felt surprise at the objection raised by the present petitioner in respect of the order passed by the learned Judge on 31st March, 1975, and observed, that he "in any event had no locus stands to object to the sale of any of the attached properties". However, as it had become amply clear that the objection of the intervenor was confined only to one property, the learned Judge observed "out of abundant caution, therefore, it is clarified that the decree-holder is at liberty to proceed with execution in respect of the properties other than property tearing No. 8/7/2/1/1". The petitioner then moved this petition for special leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel has contended that there was no power of sue motu review with the learned Single Judge in the High Court and that, in any case, the impugned order could not have been passed in exercise of that power nor in fact, the said power was exercised. He has also contended that the order dated the 31st of March, 1975, had become final and except through the normal processes of review or appeal, the same could not have been altered. Lastly he contended that the said order is enough to give meaning to the contents thereof. There was therefore, according to him, no scope for clarification.
4. We asked the learned counsel whether there was any property other than the numbers mentioned in the intervenor's application (Civil Miscellaneous No. 572/73), which was then available under the decree to the decree---holder for sale and if there was any such property he was asked to give its number. The learned counsel failed to respond. Obviously even according to the petitioner there was no such property, therefore, it goes without saying that a confusion had arisen on account of the contents of the said application as also the reference made to its contents in the order dated the 31st of March, 1975 (which when read together could give an impression that there was some property still left for sale it was contrary to the afore--noted position). This confusion and uncertainty needed clarification. There is another aspect of the matter. On account of the undisputed position stated above, a clerical mistake had crept in the order dated the 31st of March, 1975, which was caused by an error made in the application of the intervenor. This error, it was necessary for further progress of the matter, should have been corrected. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The learned counsel for the intervenor himself made categorical statement noted in the impugned order that his client's objection related only to the property bearing No. R-C 8/7/2/1/1. The learned counsel not appearing does not deny the right of a party to give up an objection wholly or partly. Thus after the learned counsel for the inter--venor had made the statement giving up the objection with regard to numbers other than 8/6/2/1/1, the Court was competent to act on such a statement. And lastly in view of the above position, the proceedings before the learned High Court needed correction. Thus it was a case for not only clarification which as observed by the learned Judge was made by way of abundant caution but also the correction of a clerical error and a technical defect in the proceedings which were required to be corrected.
5. There was no question of review and it was not necessary for the intervenor to have filed an appeal against the order dated 31st March, 1975 for this purpose. He, accordingly, find no force in this petition dismiss the same.