' MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, J.---The defendant/appellant obtained a loan/investment from the plaintiff/ respondent to the tune of Rs.52,00,000 vide Deed of Assignment and Partnership dated 3rd January, 1984 for construction of house. The defendant/ appellant did not keep the repayment schedule and committed breach of the terms and conditions of the aforementioned Assignment and Partnership Deed. The plaintiff/respondent-Corporation made an application on 14-12-1995 to the learned District Judge, Sheikhupura under section 30 of the House Building Finance Corporation Act, 1952 for delivery of the vacant possession or sale of the building which was already mortgaged and assigned to the Corporation. The application was resisted alleging that the suit house collapses in 1988 due to the flood and some cracks also occurred in the walls and the floor of the house. It was not fit for habitation. The defendant/appellant applied to the Corporation for re- evaluation of the house but the same was declined. Out of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the applicant is estopped by his own word and conduct to file the present application?
OPR
(2) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the application? OPR
(3) Whether the application is not maintainable in its present form? OPR
(4) Whether the applicant is entitled for the decree as prayed for.
(5) Relief.
The learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura after recording the evidence of the parties allowed the application as prayed for vide judgment dated 15-10-1998.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Government of Punjab vide Notification dated 29th October, 1988 has declared 291 revenue estates/villages of Tehsil Ferozewala as calamity affected areas under Punjab Natural Calamities (Prevention and Reliet) Ordinance, 1958.
Learned counsel urged that he has filed an application under Order XLI, rule 27, C.P.C. For producing the said notification as additional evidence. He further submitted that the Assignment and Partnership Deed between the parties was on "profit and loss sharing basis. Since the appellant has suffered a loss this fact has not been considered by the learned trial Court. He urged that despite his application the re-evaluation of the property was not made. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned judgment.
3. I have gone through the judgment of the trial Court and perused the record. The application C.M.
No.2/C of 1998 of the appellant under Order XLI, rule 27 for production of the notification dated 29th October, 1988 is allowed in the interest of justice and the same is read in evidence. This application has no bearing on the instant case. The Notification dated 29th October, 1988 has been issued by the Government of Punjab under a Provincial Ordinance i.e. Punjab Natural Calamities (Prevention and Relief) Ordinance, 1958. The relief under the said Notification can be claimed by the calamity affected person against the Provincial Government. The instant notification also shows that a request was made to the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan to:-- "(a) defer the recovery of the agricultural loans already granted to the affected farmers.
(b) on further advancement of interest free agricultural loans to enable the affectees to sow the next crop."
The bare reading of the Notification shows that it is not applicable to the House Building Corporation. Further more there is nothing on the record to show that the house was actually damaged by the flood except bald statements of the R.Ws. Similarly there is no application on the record by the appellant for re-evaluation of the house as alleged. The availing of the loans is admitted by the appellant. In this view of the matter I am not inclined to take a different view. This appeal has no merit and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.