ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.--- Listed today before us for hearing is C.M.A. No, 871 of 2009. Contents whereof read as follows:-- "(1) That an amount of Rs,22,00,000 was deposited by Syed Munir Hussain Gillani (Judgment Debtor) in the above said petitions per order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, dated 12-7-2002 at Lahore.
(2) That since the Review Petitions by the auction purchaser Syed Moazzam Ahmad Bukhari, the applicant, stand dismissed vide order dated12-11-2008, the amount deposited for auction purchaser may kindly be refunded to him along with compensatory interest in the light of Supreme Court A appeal order dated 14-2-2007. It is further requested that no deduction from the refund may be made."
2. It seems that in the background of this application moved by the auction purchaser Syed Moazzam All Bukhari on 2-12-2008, in, the first place verification was sought from the office regarding the deposit of Rs,22,00,000 by judgment debtor Munir Hussain Gillani, in pursuance of order dated 12-7-2002. During this, process it transpired that there was some confusion/ambiguity about the actual deposited sum with the Assistant Registrar of this Court at Branch Registry, Lahore. In order to verify this position, from time to time several orders were passed and finally, in order to find out the truth, vide order dated 10-1-2011, Qazi Sajjid Mehmood, Additional Registrar of this Court was appointed as Enquiry Officer to hold an enquiry into the matter and submit his report within a fortnight, who accordingly submitted his detailed report dated .17-2-2011 along with the relevant record, with the following recommendations:- "Recommendations ' Given the above facts, it is respectfully submitted that:- ( ) The petitioner Syed Munir Gillani prima facie, failed to deposit the exact amount i,e, rupees 22 lac as ordained by the Court vide its order dated 12-7-2002. He could only deposit rupees 20 lac within the prescribed time. He deposited the remaining 2 lac on 15-7-2002. This is a violation -of the Court order. Only the Hon'ble Court can condone it or take any other decision.
(2) Regarding the role of the then Assistant Registrar and Cashier, both showed .Least professional work ethics by receiving the lesser amount than ordered by the Court without raising any objection in the first instance and subsequently by not entering the received amount in the office register on the same day and thirdly by not apprising the Hon'ble Court regarding the receipt of the lesser amount. However, in view of the acceptance of the responsibility of this lapse by the Assistant Registrar and, his willingness to pay rupees 2 lac a lenient view may not be taken of this lapse and both Mr. Pervez Ahmed and the Casheir may be warned to be careful in future;
(3) The Hon'ble Court may like to permit gr. Pervez Ahmed to deposit the missing 2 lac. The Hon'ble Court may like to make a decision regarding the payment of Mr. Moazzam Ali Bokhari as refund of his amount deposited on direction of the Court."
3. Mr. Muhammad Aslam Awan, Advocate Supreme Court for respondent No,2, without much adverting to the contents of listed CMA referred to above, argued that in terms of the judgment dated 14-2-2007, respondent No,2/auction purchaser was entitled for 13 per cent interest per annum for the period 15-1-2000 to 14-2-2007, as compound interest, which the judgment debtor failed to deposit within time. He further contended that sum of Rs,22,00,000 ordered to be deposited by Muneer Hussain Gillani, judgment debtor, in terms of the order dated 12-7-2002, was also not complied in its letter and spirit and for these reasons final judgment dated 14-2-2007 was liable to be reversed in favour of auction purchaser.
4. Conversely, during the course of his arguments Mr. Gulzarin Kiyani, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Cotirt for Munir Hussain Gillani, Judgment Debtor strongly contended that though he has no objection/grievance against the enquiry proceedings held in order to verify the authenticity of two receipts dated 13-7-2002 and 15-7-2002, regarding deposit of Rs,20,00,000 and Rs,2,00,000 respectively, produced by his client before this Court, which are duly signed by Mr. Pervaiz Ahmed, the then Assistant Registrar of this Court at Lahore Registry, but he would like to bring this fact on record that such proceedings were totally out of context to the arguments advanced by learned Advocate Supreme Court for Syed Moazzam All Bukhari, Auction Purchaser, and the prayer made in C.M.A. No,871 of 2009. In order to gain support to his submissions in this regard, he referred before us paragraph No,11 of the judgment dated 14-2-2007, which reads as follows:- "11. For what has been stated above, Civil Petitions Nos.,170-L -and 1711-L of 2002 are converted into appeals, are allowed the impugned sale is set aside B while Civil Appeal No,2780 of 2001 filed by the auction purchaser is dismissed. We are however, of the view that the auction purchaser should be compensated for the deposit of Rs, 22,00,000 by him. Therefore, the judgment debtor shall deposit 13% interest per annum from 15-1-2000 till 14-2-2007, the date of announcement of this judgment on the amount of Rs,22,00,000 minus the amount already deposited by him. This should be done within 30 days from today i,e, 14th February, 2007. The auction purchaser will be entitled to the aforesaid amount. In case of his failure his appeal shall stand dismissed and that of auction purchaser resurrected. C.M. No,742 of 2006 is by Malik Muhammad Akram who had offered to purchase the property for Rs,75,00,000. He, however, did not honour his commitment. He seeks review of the order dated 12-7-2002 under which he had made an initial deposit of Rs,200,000 with reference to his offer to purchase the property. We see no merit in this application which is dismissed."
5. Further submission of the learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court was that the issue as regards to the deposit of Rs,22,00,000 in terms of the order dated 12-7-2002, has neither any nexus to the claim of. The Auction Purchaser made in the listed application nor it was an issue open for fresh adjudication after final disposal of C.P. No,170-L of 2002, C.P. No,1711-L of 2002 and C.A. No,2780 of 2001, in terms of judgment dated 14-2-2007. Moreso, when review Applications Nos.73, 74 and 82 of 2007 against such common judgment moved by the auction purchaser were also dismissed, vide order dated 12-11-2008.
6. His next submission was that in compliance of the order dated 14-2-2007, what was required to be done by Munir Hussain Gillani (Judgment Debtor) was only to deposit 13 per cent interest per annum from 15-1-2000 till 14-2-2007 within thirty days from the date of the said order i,e, 14-2-2007, which sum was accordingly calculated and paid by him in the office through Bank Draft No,CDF 041089 dated 12-3-2007 for a sum of Rs,20,26,290 in the name of Auction Purchaser Syed Moazzam Ali Bukhari, which was accordingly received by him through his counsel/attorney Mr. M. M. Malik and got encashed, as also evident from the report dated 5-3-2011 obtained from the office of Banking Court, Lahore. He further pointed out that 30 days time for compliance allowed, vide order dated 14-2-2007, in view of 28 days in the month of February, 2007 had to expire on 16-3-2007, therefore, payment through Bank Draft dated 12-3-2007, which was well within the stipulated time, entailed no penal consequences.
7. In order to verify the last assertion, we have enquired from Mr. M. M. Malik, Advocate/Attorney of.
Auction Purchaser present in. Court, who has affirmed such statement of Mr. Gulzarin Kiyani, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the Judgment Debtor.
8. Mr. Gulzarin Kiyani, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court, replying to the grievance of the Auction Purchaser about non-compliance of the earlier order dated 12-7-2002, reiterated that firstly this controversy is a past and closed transaction, inasmuch as two C.P.L.As were finally allowed and civil appeal was dismissed on 14-2-2007 and even review applications against such judgment were dismissed on 12-11-2008, secondly, the receipts of Rs,20,00,000 and Rs,2,00,000 dated 13-7-2002 and 15-7-2002 respectively, showing deposit of requisite amount with the Assistant. Registrar of this Court, were genuine receipts and it is for this reason that even now Mr. Pervaiz Ahmad, Ex-Deputy Registrar has shown his willingness to deposit the sum of Rs,200,000, if ordered by this Court.
9. Mr.Pervaiz Ahmed, Ex-Deputy Registrar of this Court in his reply submitted that as he was not sure about the deposit of Rs,2,00,000 by the Judgment Debtor vide receipt dated 15-7-2002, purportedly signed by him, and he has also no knowledge about the report of handwriting expert in this context in his favour, therefore, in order to avoid any future complications and to maintain his clean service record he has extended such offer to deposit Rs,2,00,000, but without admission of any guilt on his part.
10. The documents attached with the enquiry report reveal that due to the indefinite stance taken by the then Assistant Registrar, Mr. Pervaiz Ahmed regarding his signatures on the second receipt dated 15-7-2002, the matter was referred by the enquiry officer to the handwriting expert for his opinion, whose report dated 29-1-2011, as regards his alleged signatures on the receipt. Dated 15-7- 2002 has been received in the negative, thereby, prima facie, absolving Mr. Pervaiz Ahmed, the then Assistant Registrar at Lahore Registry from any financial or criminal liability, though as per the recommendations of the enquiry officer, he has still volunteered to deposit the sum of. Rs,2,00,000 in Court.
' However, to cut short this dispute, Mr. Gulzarin Kianyani, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court, without touching or entering into the merits of the controversy, has offered to deposit a sum of Rs,2,00,000 in Court within two weeks time to bury this litigation once for all. At the same time, to meet the outstanding further claim of respondent No,1 Habib Bank Limited toward settlement of their loan account with the Judgment Debtor, he has also offered to deposit a sum of Rs,37,000 with them within the same period. This proposal/offer made on behalf 'of the Judgment Debtor is readily acceptable to Ms. Aaliya Nelum, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the Habib Bank Limited/Decree Holder. She states that upon payment of outstanding sum of Rs,37,000 by the Judgment Debtor, all his original title documents already deposited in this Court and the clearance certificate may be delivered to him.
11. In so far as the Auction Purchaser is concerned, it is an admitted position that vide Demand Draft of Rs,20,26,290 dated 12-3-2007, he has received 13 per cent simple interest for the period mentioned in paragraph No,11 of the judgment dated 14-2-2007, therefore, now he is only, entitled to the payment of remaining sum of Rs, 22,00,000 out of which Rs,20,00,000 are lying deposited with 'this Court since 13-7-2002, while the remaining sum of Rs,2,00,000, as undertaken by the Judgment Debtor, will be deposited by him within two weeks from the date of this order. Upon deposit of this amount, payment of total sum of Rs,22,00,000 will be made by the office to the Auction Purchaser, or his attorney after proper identification, for which no . Further approval, of the Court will be required. In so far as the Judgment Debtor, Munir Hussain Gillani is concerned, he will be entitled for the return/release of original title documents of his property and the clearance certificate from the Bank after deposit of Rs,2,00,000 in terms of this order and also payment of Rs,37,000 to the respondent No,1. Bank within the stipulated period. For convenience sake, it is further ordered that the sum of Rs,2;20,000 deposited by the Judgment Debtor before the Banking Court No,4, vide Pay Order No,SP/C587362 dated 8-4-2000 may also be reimbursed to Habib Bank Limited, as per their entitlement. Before parting with this order, we may observe that plea of compound interest or future interest raised by the Auction Purchaser, at this stage is untenable for the reason C that it is beyond the stipulation contained in the judgment dated 14-2-2007, and further the sum deposited by the Judgment Debtor in this Court in compliance of the order dated 12-7-2002 is lying in the current account of this C Court, bearing no interest/mark-up thereon.
12. In the above terms, C.M.A. Is disposed of.