C.M. No,460-B of 2013 ' MRS. AYESI-IA A. MALIK, J.---This is an application seeking grant of interim relief against the auction dated 28-6-2013 filed by the Plaintiff with respect to its property in Blocks E, F & G of defendant No,2 society. On 1-7-2013 the suit was instituted by the plaintiff and on 11-7-2013 this court ordered that the defendants were not to finalize the auction proceedings scheduled for 28-6-2013 for the plots in Blocks E, F and G. This interim order was extended from 30-7-2013 till today. Today the instant application has been argued at length along with the PLAs. Learned counsel for the Bank had questioned the interim relief given by this court on 11-7-2013 on the ground that the plaintiff is not the owner of the property which have been put to auction.
2. The case of the defendant No,1 Bank is that the plaintiff, Acro Developers (Pvt.) Ltd. Is not the owner of the property which was the property for the auction scheduled for 28-6-2013. Learned counsel for defendant No,1 argued that the defendant No,1 re-scheduled the debt of the plaintiff vide proposal dated 22-12-2010. In terms of this proposal, the principle funded liability as detailed in the proposal was adjusted through the acquisition price of plots of the Acro Group. The plots are 302 in number. Further adjustment was made through acquisition price of plots of BACHS/defendant No,2. Learned counsel argued that these were 103 plots and the total number of plots adjusted were 505 for the benefit of the debt to the plaintiff outstanding against the Bank. The total amount adjusted is Rs .1369.108 Million. Learned counsel for the Bank argued that the plaintiff was neither the owner of these 505 plots nor the owner of 224 plots which were subject to auction.
The plaintiff at best is the beneficiary, as its debt was adjusted by the Bank. Learned counsel argued that pursuant to this proposal an agreement was executed on 5-4-2011. The allotment in favour of the original owners were cancelled and the plots were transferred in the name of the bank. Thereafter in July 2011 provisional allotment letters were issued to the Bank and finally the property was transferred to the Bank by virtue of the allotment letters issued on 3-7-2013. Leaned counsel for the Bank states that all the provisional and final allotment letters in favour of the bank have been appended through C.M. No,555-B of 2013. He argued that the plaintiff was never the owner of any of these plots and the plaintiff has not brought any title document on the record to show that it was the owner of the 505 plots which were the subject-matter of the adjustment and 224 plots which are the subject matter of the auction.
3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon an arbitration award dated 16-1-2010 to show its ownership. The learned counsel argued that it became the joint owner of the plots which were put to auction on the basis of the award. He relies upon para 6 and 7 of the Award to show that certain plots were to be allocated to the petitioners. He argued that in terms of the matter before the Arbitrator the plaintiff was petitioner No,1 who was allocated plots by the Arbitrator. The entire case of the plaintiff for preventing the auction is that since it is owner of the plots put to auction, the same should not be put to auction as the plaintiff did not enter into any settlement with the Bank of its own free will. Learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the adjustment proposal dated 22-12- 2010 and the documents executed thereafter were executed under duress by the plaintiff.
4. I have heard both the learned counsel at length and reviewed the record available on the file.
5. The suit of the plaintiff challenges the offer letter dated 22-12-2010 and 2-3-2011 pursuant to which outstanding facilities were adjusted by the Bank. The plaintiff claims that these documents were executed under duress, hence these documents are void and of no consequences. The plaintiff also claims rendition of accounts and damages in the suit. There is nothing on the record to show that the plaintiff is the owner of the plots which are to be auctioned by the Bank. The plaintiff was given an opportunity to place on record all documents which would establish its claim. On 5-9-2012 this court gave all the parties time to file additional documents on the basis of which C.M. No,460-B of 2013 could be argued. The defendant No,2 has placed on record the allotment letters through C.M. No,546-B of 2013. The plaintiff is not shown as the owner of any plot in the attached documents. The defendant No,1 has also placed documents on the record evidencing its ownership through allotment letters dated July 2011. Again no document shows the plaintiff as the owner of any plot. A summary by the arbitration award was also filed by the plaintiff through C.M. No,542-B of 2013. A review of the summary confirms that the plaintiff does not own any plot but claims an interest in the allotment of the plots on account of the losses it has suffered due to the failure of the housing project i.e, Banker's Avenue Cooperative Housing Society (BACHS).
Furthermore the record shows that the plaintiff was to develop the infrastructure facilities in BACHS, for which BACHS was to make payment based upon work performed. The prayer in the suit is for damages and rendition of accounts,, cancellation of letters dated 22-12-2010 and 2-3-2011. I am of the opinion that even if the prayers were to be granted to the plaintiff it would still not be entitled to the plots in the name of the Bank. None of the owners of the plots are before this court. Therefore based on the prayers of the plaintiff in the suit and based on the fact that the plaintiff is not the owner of the plots which are to be auctioned, the defendant No,1 may proceed with the auction strictly in accordance with law.
6. C.M. Is dismissed.
C.M. No,486-B of 2013
7. In view of the order passed in C.M. No,460-B of 2013, this application has become infructuous.
Disposed of.
P.L.A. No,153-B of 2013
8. To come up for further arguments on the P.L.A. On 4-11-2013.