1. AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.---1 and 5. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 29-3-2001, the Official Assignee has examined the claim of Kamal Waris, (Intervenor) and has filed this reference in which he has stated that the machinery claimed by Kamal Waris is owned by him. In his reference he has stated that except Kamal Waris, who had examined himself on oath, neither Allied Bank nor Habib Bank nor CIRC has examined any witness nor had placed any material to controvert the claim of the Intervenor before him. Objections to this reference has been filed by CIRC and Habib Bank Limited. Learned counsel for the CIRC has submitted that the machinery claimed by the Intervenor is actually owned by the judgment-debtor and the CIRC has a floating charge on it. His next contention was that the Official Assignee did not follow the provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat while examining the claim of the Intervenor. His third submission was that NOC was not obtained by the judgment debtor while installing the machinery of the Intervenor in the factory and, therefore, it would be presumed that machinery installed in the factory belongs to the judgment-debtor on which CIRC has the floating charge. The learned counsel for the Habib Bank Limited has adopted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the CIRC Mr. Nizam Ali Khan, Advocate, who is appearing for Allied Bank of Pakistan, states that the bank has no floating charge on the machinery claimed by the Intervenor, therefore, he has nothing to add on the issue. I have examined the report of the official assignee and the objections and have heard the learned counsel. The first submission of the learned counsel for the CIRC is not substantiated by any material. No one was examined by the CIRC to establish that the judgment-debtor was the owner of the machinery claimed by the Intervenor. Secondly, in regard to the application of provisions of Qanun-e- Shahadat, the learned counsel has failed to cite any provision of Qanun-e-Shahadat, which applies to the inquiry conducted by the Official Assignee. This Court by its order dated 29-3-2001 has directed the Official Assignee to examine the claim of the Intervnor and the Official Assignee was not required to examine the proprietory of the documents/material unless a specific plea of forgery was raised by the contesting party. The learned counsel for the CIRC submitted that the material placed before the Official Assignee was inadmissible. No such objection was raised before the Official Assignee, therefore, this plea of the learned counsel is otherwise is untenable. I have also examined the deed of floating charge executed between the Bank and the judgment-debtor. There is no provision under which the judgment-debtor was required to obtain NOC for installing any machinery in his factory. Even otherwise, the Deed of Floating charge can only bind the Judgment-debtor and the Intervenor is a stranger to such privity of contract and, therefore, machinery claimed by the Intervenor would, not be governed by the terms agreed in to between the Bank and the Intervenor unless it is shown that the machinery was purchased by the judgment-debtor. Even the report of the Official Assignee clearly suggests that the machinery of the Intervenor has not been claimed by the Judgment- debtor and the Auction Purchaser has stated before him that any decision in regard to the machinery of the Intervenor would be binding on him Under these circumstances, the Official Assignee's Reference No.1 of 2005 is accepted and the objections filed against this reference are overruled. In view of the orders passed herein-above on Official Assignee's Reference No.1 of 2005, the Official Assignee's Reference No.3 of 2006 is taken up for hearing and is also disposed of. The Intervenor shall shift the machinery from the premises of the Mills in presence of Official Assignee's representative within fifteen days.
2. 2 to 4. Defferred. May be fixed in the next week.