1. ' SYED SAEEDUDDIN NASIR, J.---This order will dispose of C.M.A. No,350 of 2015, which is an application under Order XXIII, Rule 3, C.P.C. Wherein the plaintiff and the defendants Nos.2 and 3 have stated that they have settled the matter in the following manner and that this Court may be pleased to accordingly decree the suit in the following terms:-
(1) "That the defendants Nos.2 and 3 herein below admit the claim of the plaintiff to the extent of 25% shareholding each in the defendant No,1 by virtue of Sale Agreement dated 11-6-2014.
(2) That in consequence of above, the defendant No,4 may be directed to amend Form-A by including the name of the plaintiff to the extent of 50% shareholding in defendant No,1.
(3) That no reliefs are claimed against rest of the defendants and the suit may be disposed of as against them."
2. ' The defendant No,1 has filed his written statement wherein he has inter alia stated that he is 50% owner of the suit land, which, is also stated in the contents of the written statement and earlier Counter Affidavit and Rejoinders. The defendant No,1 has stated in The Counter Affidavit that the instant application is not maintainable on the ground that no affidavit has been filed in support of the application, whereas the defendants Nos.2 and 3 since very inception of the case, never appeared before this Court either physically before the concerned Assistant Registrar (Affidavit and Identity Branch) of this Court for the purpose of profiling, verification of CNIC and thumb impression with NADRA in accordance.
3. ' Mr. Khawaja Shamsul Islam the learned counsel appearing for defendant No,1 has inter alia argued that the instant application is barred in terms of the mandatory provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 3, C.P.C., which requires that only lawful agreement or compromise can be given effect to, more particularly the satisfaction of the Court is also necessary, the ingredients of Order XXIII, Rule 3, C.P.C. Are totally lacking inasmuch as present suit as well as the instant application under reply are violative of mandatory provisions contemplated by the Companies Ordinance, 1984 read with the Memorandum of Articles and Association of defendant No, 1 's company, whereby the existing director of defendant No,1 namely Managing Director Muhammad Munaf Atara and Director Muhammad Ayub Soratia are entitled to pre-emptive rights to purchase the shares of defendants Nos.2 and 3. However, the defendants Nos.2 and 3 in complete defiance of the Articles of Association, never ever offered the said shares to the defendant No, 1 's existing directors, hence the suit as well as the instant application are not maintainable and liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. He further contends that the instant application whereby the plaintiff has claimed the so-called purchase of 50% of defendant No,1 Company is misconceived and misleading, as the so-called fictitious and forged agreement annexed with the plaint bears the forged signatures of the defendant No,2 only, who has 25% share-holding in defendant No,1 Company, hence the so- called agreement is not only forged and fictitious but also defective from legal point of view, therefore, on this sole account alone, the plaintiff and the so-called attorney of defendants Nos.2 and 3 are proved to be guilty of misguiding and hoodwink this Court. The instant application has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with defendants Nos.2 and 3 and the reliefs claimed therein cannot be granted inasmuch as no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff for filing the present suit. In view of the fact that the agreement of sale dated 11-6-2914 entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No,2 for the sale/transfer of 50% shares of defendant No,1 company, which is being sought through this suit specifically forged, cannot be specifically unauthorized buyer created on such a transfer by Memorandum, and Articles of Association of the defendant No,1 as well as relevant provisions of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The so-called forged and fictitious sale agreement dated 11-6-2014 is nothing but a void contract totally inadmissible in terms of provisions of the Contract Act, as the same is without any proper sale consideration which is evident from the fact that so-called sale consideration for 50% shares in the company of the defendant No,1 together with the project namely Fatima Ai Towers consisting of ground plus 12 storied towers, having been constructed on a plot of land measuring 6630 square yards, for which the total cost of construction was more than 82 crores as per record of KBCA, has been fraudulently transacted through the aforesaid fictitious agreement at Rs,61,50,000 only, hence on this point alone the instant application as well as the entire suit is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff has claimed to have allegedly purchased 50% shares of, the defendant No,1 from the defendants Nos.2 and 3, but the so-called fictitious and forged agreement bears the forged signatures of defendant No,2 only who has 25% share holding of the defendant No,1 company. The learned counsel for the defendant No,1 has referred to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the defendant No,1, which have been filed by the plaintiff along with the plaint available at page No, 41 of the suit file has referred to Articles 4, 7, 11, 12, 16, 19, 21 and 22, which are reproduced as under:- THE COMPANIES ORDINANCE, 1984 (COMPANY LIMITED BY SHARES)
4. ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF MARY (PRIVATE) LIMITED PRIVATE COMPANY
(4) "The company shall be private Company with liability limited by shares, no invitation shall be issued to the Public to subscribe for its shares or debentures. The number of the members of the Company shall be limited to fifty excluding persons who are in the employment of the company.
5. Provided however that the company may at any time be converted into a Public Limited Company after fulfilling all necessary conditions of the Companies Ordinance, for the time being in force. The right of the transfer of share shall be restricted in the manner and to the extent hereinafter provided.
SHARES
(7) The shares shall be under the Control of the Director who may allot or otherwise dispose off the same or any of them to such persons, on such terms and conditions and at such times as the Directors think fit and with full power to give to any person the call of any shares at a premium or at par or (subject to the provisions of the Ordinance) at a discount for such time and for such consideration as the Directors.(sic.)
TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION OF SHARES
(11) No transfer of any shares shall be made or registered without the previous sanction of the Directors and the Directors may decline to give such sanction and shall so decline in case of any transfer the registration of which shall involve a contravention of Article 4.
(12) A person whether a member of the company or not (hereinafter called the proposing transferor) who desires to transfer any shares to any person must serve the company with a notice in writing (hereinafter called the Transfer Notice) that he desires to make such transfer notice must specify the name and address of the proposed Transferee and the sum at which the proposing transfer fixed the fair value of the shares and within 30 days after the service of such notice the directors shall give the proposing transferor notice of their approval or disapproval of the transfer and if they approve, the proposed transfer may be forthwith carried out subject only to Articles 4, 16, 17 and 18 hereof. But if they disapprove, the Transfer Notice shall be deemed to constitute the company as the agent of the proposing transfer for the sale of the shares to any member or the persons selected by the directors at the fair value and such authority shall not be revocable.
(16) Notwithstanding anything, to the contrary in Articles 12, 15, 18 and 20 the director may refuse to register any transfer of shares subject to provision of section 78 of the Ordinance.
(19) If the registration of a share or debenture is refused the directors shall within 30 days from the date on which the instrument of transfer was lodged send to the transferor and the transferee notice of the reason for such refusal.
(21) In order to ascertain whether member is willing to purchase a share at the fair value, the member proposing to transfer the same shall give notice (hereinafter described as a sale notice) to the company that he desires to sell the same. Every sale notice shall specify the denoting number of the shares, which the retiring member desires to sell shall continue the company agent of the Retiring Member for the sale of any such, shares to any member of the company. No sale, notice shall be withdrawn except with the sanction of the directors.
(22) If the company shall within forty two days after service of a sale notice find a member willing to purchase any share comprised therein (hereinafter described as the "purchasing member") and shall give notice thereof to the Retiring Member, or Retiring shall bound upon payment of the price agreed upon or in the absence of agreement of the fair value to transfer the share to such purchasing member, who shall be bound to complete the purchase within seven days from the service of such last mentioned notice. The Directors shall with a view to finding a purchasing member offer them to the existing members of the company other than the Retiring Member as early as may be in proportion to their holding of shares in the company and shall limit a time within which such offer, is not accepted will be deemed to be declined. The Directors shall make such arrangement as regards the holdings of purchasing member for any shares not accepted by a member to whom they shall have been so offered as aforesaid, within the time so limited, as they shall think just and reasonable and may offer the shares to nonmember who in the opinion is desirable have interest of the company to admit to membership."
6. ' Learned counsel for the defendant No,1 in order to substantiate his arguments has relied upon the following case-law:-
(1) 2003 CLD 183 Supreme Court.
7. ' Inclusion of pre-emptive right for transfer and purchase of shares in Articles of Association- Validity-Such restriction is legal and valid covenant in the Articles of Association.
(2) M.S. Madhusoodhanan and another v. Kerala Kaumudi Pvt. Ltd. And others (2004) 9 SCC 204.
8. ' Normally specific performance is not granted except in circumstances, specified in the explanation of section 10. However, one of the exceptions is where the property is of special value or interest to the plaintiff, or consists of goods which are not easily obtainable in the market". It has been held by a long line of authorities that shares in a private limited company would come within the phrase "not easily obtainable in the market."
(3) Hillcrest Realty Sdn. Bhd v. Hotel Queen Road (Pvt.) Ltd. And others [2006] 71 SCL 41 (CLB)
9. ' One of the basic characteristics of a private company, is the restriction on the right to transfer the shares to a non-member, and the same will apply even if a private company is a subsidiary of a public company.
(4) Ganesh Flour Mills C. Ltd. v. T.P. Khaitan (1986) 60 Corn. Cas. 28 (Delhi).
10. ' In the case of Private Ltd. Company, a family or other private group can confine the share- holdings to themselves or render them subject to their approval.
(5) Babul M. Varrna v. New Standard Coal Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (1967) 1 Camp U 161 (Cal.)
11. ' The Articles which provide for the pre-emption right but do not expressly provide for notice to be given by the company to its members of such proposal, still, by implication, at any rate, the company is required to bring to the notice of the members the proposal for sale of shares.
12. '(6) Tett v. Phoenix Property and Investment Co. Ltd., (1986) BCLC 149.
13. ' No share of the company shall be transferred by a member to any person not already a member of the company.
(7) Cruickshank Co. Ltd. v. Stridewell Leather (Pvt.) Ltd. [1996] 86 Comp Cas 439 (CLB)
14. The shares or other interest of any member in a company shall be movable property transferable in the manner provided by the Articles of the company.
(8) John Tinson and Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Mrs. Surjeet Malhan, AIR 1997 SCW 1537.
15. Without any specific authority by the owner of the shares in favour of third party, no person gets any authority to transfer the shares, and the transferee gets no right and title to the shares.
(9) V.B. Rangaraj v. Gopalakrishnan AIR 1992 SC 453.
16. ' Refusal to register the transfer of shares to another director can be done only on the ground of restrictions contained in the Articles of Association.
17. (10)2003 SCM R 132 - United Liner Agencies of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Mahenu Aga.
(b) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 2(28)---Transfer of shares of private limited company- --Principles---Transfer of shares in any manner, otherwise than that provided in Articles of Association would be invalid and contrary to the terms of contract agreed upon by the members of the company/shareholders.
(c) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 2(28) & 89---Transfer of shares of private limited company---Inclusion of preemptive right for transfer and purchase of shares in Articles of Association---Validity---Such restriction is legal and valid covenant in the Articles of Association.
(d) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 2(28) & 89---Preemptive right of existing shareholders/directors of the company---No objection by State Bank of Pakistan to sell the shares--Defendant without offering his shares to the existing shareholders/directors of the company, sold the same to third party--Plaintiff assailed the sale of shares on the ground that they were willing to purchase the shares but no notice, as required by Articles of Association of the Company, had been given either to the Secretary of the company or to them---High Court in exercise of original civil jurisdiction dismissed the suit but Division Bench of High Court allowed the appeal and suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs---Validity---No reason existed to take different view with regard to the import and inference drawn in respect of the Articles of the Company that existing members of the Company having shown their willingness to buys the, shares had pre-emptive right who were not even offered to buy the shares at the fair value to be fixed in accordance with the provisions of Articles of Association, and had first right of refusal to purchase the same.
18. ' The learned counsel for the defendant No,1 further placed reliance on sections 28 and 89 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, which read as under:- THE COMPANIES ORDINANCE, 1984.
19. Sections
(28) "private company' means a company which, by its Articles,---
(i) restricts the right to transfer its shares, if any,
(ii) limits the number of its members to fifty not including persons who are in the employment of the company; and
(iii) prohibits any invitation to the public to subscribe for the shares, if any, or debentures of the company. Provided that, where two or more persons hold one or more shares in a company jointly, they shall, for the purposes of this definition, be treated as a single member; PART - VI SHARE CAPITAL AND DEBENTURES NATURE, NUMBERING AND 'CERTIFICATE OF SHARES
(89) Nature of shares and certificate of shares.---(1) The shares of other interest of any member in a company shall be moveable property transferable in the manner provided by the Articles of the company:
(2) Each sharp in a company shall have a distinctive number.
(3) A certificate, under the common seal of the company specifying any shares held by any member shall be prima facie evidence of the title of the member to the shares therein specified.
(11) 1993 SCMR 374 - Umar Baksh v. Azim Khan.
(d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIII, R.3--- Compromise---Requirements of O.XXXIII, R. 3, C.P.C. Order XXXIII, rule 3, C.P.C. Requires that the court shall order compromise of suit to be recorded when it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of whole or any part of the subject matter of the suit.
(d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0. XXXIII, R.3--- Compromise---When complete.
20. ' The compromise would be completed when it is accepted by the Court and orders are passed by the Court as desired by the parties. Court would consider the document to be compromise when both parties signing it agree and reiterate the contents before the Court. If before the Court one party to the document resiles from it, then the document can be called anything but an agreement or compromise.
21. ' A judicial or quasi-judicial determination, to inspire confidence and to command respect, must be based on record, or material beyond suspicion and reproach.
(12) 2012 CLD 1136 - Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd. v. Messrs Khairpur Sugar Mills Limited and another.
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----Paramount duty of court is to ascertain (on an objective basis) the intent of parties and real terms of agreement actually arrived at---Courts have developed fairly elaborate principle of interpretation of contracts in order to do so, it is the different matter from first finding the agreement voidable and then modify it in order to brig or keep it within the law.
(13) 2012 CLC 1674 - Humayun Akhtar Jalil v. Capital One Equipment Ltd.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
22. ' O. XXXIII, R. 3 & S. 151---Agreement between parties seeking decision of suit in terms thereof--- Powers of court to refuse enforcement of such agreement---Scope---Court had inherent jurisdiction/power to refuse enforcement of a lawful agreement, which shocked conscious that its enforcement would be either inequitable or work substantial injustice if given effect to---Court would not enforce an agreement either to be voidable on its face or found to be voidable on basis of undisputed/admitted facts---Words "shall" as used in latter part of O.XXIII, R. 3, C.P.C. Would not be rad as requiring court to mandatorily and mechanically pass a decree on a compromise application made on basis of a 'lawful agreement', rather same would be interpreted in softer sense of "may"---Refusal of court to pass a decree on basis of a lawful agreement would be an exception rather than rule."
23. ' Mr. Muhammad Rahman Ghouse, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff controverting the arguments extended by the counsel for the defendant No,1 has inter alia submitted that the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration, specific performance and injunction on 2-9-2014 against the defendants Nos.2 and 3 who are the Directors to transfer the shares (50%) of defendant No,1 in favour of plaintiff as agreed in the agreement dated 11-6-2014 and admitted in written statement.
24. Defendant No,1 filed their written statement through its Director Mr. Munaf Attara and denied all the contentions laid down in the plaint and in the written statement nowhere it is written that defendant No,1 has a pre-emptive right over the 50% shares in the defendant No,1 some purported resolution denied in the pleadings. Thereafter plaintiff and defendants Nos.2 and 3 a compromise application bearing C.M.A. No,350 of 2015 in which defendants Nos.2 and 3 admitted plaintiff's claim to the extent of 25% each in defendant No, 1 ' Counter Affidavit has been filed by Mr. Ayoub Sorathia on behalf of defendant No,1 who is a unknown person in the eyes of law and violation of rule 69 of Articles of Association and Order XXIX, C.P.C., as defendant No, 1 is a private limited company and acting on behalf of the company the person has to have a Board Authority by Resolution signed in favour of him by all the directors of the company.
25. ' Learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the following cases in order to substantiate his arguments:-
(1) 2014 CLD 415 Tele Card Limited v. Pakistan Telecommunication Authority.
26. ' Wherein it is held that a lis could not be initiated on behalf of a company, which was juristic person without having due authority either in terms of its Articles of Association, or the Board Resolution.
(2) PLD 1990 Karachi 260 -National Bank of Pakistan v. Karachi Development Authority.
27. ' In the case it is held that suits filed by Banking Companies were signed and verified by their authorized officers---Nonsubmission of any power of attorney or resolution and copy of memorandum and Articles of Association in the Court was imminent-However, where the same was not challenged, mere production of power of attorney or resolution and copy of the Memorandum and Articles of Association should be sufficient.
(3) PLD 1971 SC 550 - Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot v. Messrs Ghulam Nabi Corporation Ltd., Lahore.
28. In this matter it is held that suit on behalf of Company by a person by a resolution passed by Company's Board of Directors meeting of Directors not duly convened unless due notice of it given to all Directors.
(4) PLD 1966 SC 684 - Messrs Muhammad Siddiq Muhammad Umar and others v. The Australasia Bank Ltd.
29. It is held in this matter that Constitution attorney of a public limited company---Persons dealing with company bound to see whether power of attorney is in accordance with Articles of Association---Power bearing common seal of company not by itself enough.
(5) PLD 2003 Karachi 691 - Jehan Khan v. Province of Sindh.
30. In this matter it is held that in the event of failure to file affidavit-in-rejoinder, the facts narrated in the affidavit had to be accepted.
(6) 2003 CLC 1602 - Abdul Rauf v. Government of Sindh.
31. In this case it is held that respondents had, filed detailed counter-affidavit and had made serious allegations of forgery and manipulations in the record, such allegations had not been denied by the petitioners by filing rejoinder affidavit, as such the same went without any rebuttal. The points raised by the petitioners were disputed questions of fact which could not be adjudicated upon Constitutional Jurisdiction and the same can be decided after recording of evidence of the parties.
(7) 2002 MLD 886 [Lahore] - Sarfaraz v. Sultan Ahmed.
32. In this matter it is held that person who wished to avail himself from the right of pre-emption under the Pre-emption Act, 1913 was required to be vigilant and see that he complied with all conditions imposed upon him by the law.
(8) 2013 CLC 1561 [Sindh] - Muhammad Ramzan v. Muhammad Akbar Bhatti.
33. In this case it is held that it is an admitted position that defendant/application was not party to the compromise application, it would be appropriate to set aside compromise decree against the defendant/applicant.
(9) 1991 MLD 889 [Supreme Court (AJ&K)] - Abdur Razzaq v. Abul Aziz.
34. In this case it is held that it is an admitted position that defendant/application was not party to the compromise application, it would be appropriate to set aside compromise decree against the defendant/applicant.
(10) AIR 1930 Priva Council 158 - Sourendra Nath Mitra v. Tarubala Dasi.
35. An agreement to compromise a suit must be established by general principles which governed the formation of contracts, though there are special rules governing its enforcement by the Courts which arise out of its intrinsic nature.
(11) 1994 SCMR 1248 - Noor Muhammad v. Muhammad Siddique.
36. It is held that leave to appeal was granted in this matter to examine whether counsel of respondents was competent to make statement accepting the offer made by petitioners and whether Trial Court was right in decreeing suit of petitioners on the basis this statement.
(12) 1995 CLC 1761 [SC(AJ&K)] - Fozia Hussain Abbasi v. The Nomination Board through Chairman.
37. ' In this matter it is held that Vakalatnama was not signed by person concerned and counsel on the basis of that had filed Constitutional Petition would not render such petition to be dismissed.
38. Absence of signatures being mere irregularity such defect stood cured after filing of duly signed " V akalatnama" .
39. ' The learned counsel for the plaintiff has further argued that on the last date of hearing defendant No,1 referred a case 2003 SCM R 132 the rationale of the case is that first right of pre-emption is of the directors who claim pre-emptive right and Articles of Association are to be strictly followed when the shares of the company are to be transferred to the third party. In this case notices have, been issued and there is no response from the remaining directors.
40. Pre-emptive right is a contractual right to acquire certain moveable property newly coming into existence before it can be offered to any other person or entity? But that right has to be claimed by seeking pre-emptive right and they cannot claim the right in someone else's suit. In the case of plaintiff defendant No,1, who is a company, the directors have never ever claimed the pre-emptive right nor in the separate case nor in the pleadings and the first time they are claiming right in the counter affidavit of the compromise application of the plaintiff and the defendants Nos.2 and 3 which is not admissible in law as filed by an unknown person.
41. In the light of the above arguments the application bearing C.M.A. No,350 of 2015 should be allowed as practically there is no reply to it as it's a settled law that when no reply has been given contents laid down in the application has to be admitted as correct. The learned counsel placed reliance on the following case-law on this point.
(a) PLD 2003 Kar. 691.
(b) 2003 CLC 1602 ' He further argued that the concept of the pre-emptive right that it must strictly be complied with to attract it's rigours and even technicalities were also relevant. Person wished to avail himself of a right under such law, was required to be vigilant and see that he complied with all conditions imposed upon him. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the following case-law on this point of law.
(a) 2002 MLD 886 He further argued that the defendant No,1 already has the knowledge that the shares of the company have been sold to the plaintiff, which can be clearly seen from the wording of the public notice dated 6-10-2014 at page No,255 of the file by the Secretary of the defendant No 1. However, he completely denied the sale of the shares of defendants Nos.2 and 3. Thereafter, no meeting in this regard has been held by the Board meeting and in all the pleadings on behalf of defendant No,1 there is not a single document which shows that any meeting to this regard was conducted by the company.
42. Compromise between the plaintiff and one or more defendants under Order XXIII, rule 3, C.P.C. Valid to the extent of parties who have compromised it. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3 have been represented through attorney as recognized agents. The following case law has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff on this point of law.
(a) 2013 CLC 1561.
(b) 1991 MLD 889.
43. ' He further argued that his application under Order XXIII, rule 3 may be allowed and if Court deems fit call up the defendants Nos.2 and 3 in person with Provision of Order III, Rule 1, C.P.C. To further proceed with the compromise as nothing has been claimed by the defendant No,1 and they simply cannot claim pre-emptive right of the shares from defendants Nos.2 and 3 in the suit of the plaintiff. He further relied upon the following case-law in order to substantiate his argument on this legal point.
(a) AIR 1930 PC 158
(b) 1994 SCMR 1248
(c) 1995 CLC 1761 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record of the case and appreciated the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the parties and have come to the conclusion that admittedly the defendant No,1 is a Private Limited Company wherein the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the defendant No,1, which are reproduced hereinabove, place specific embargo on transfer of shares that without the concurrence of other shareholders of the company the shares of the private limited company cannot be transferred. The right of transfer of shares is restricted in the manner and to the extent as provided under Articles 4, 7, 11, 12, 16, 19, 21 and 22. According to the aforesaid Articles the shares of the defendant No,1 can be transferred only to the members of the company. The existing members of the company have a pre-emptive right to claim the shares of the outgoing member of the company. The shares cannot be transferred to an outsider. The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendant No,1 fully support its contentions. Turning now to the provisions contemplated by Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, suffice it to say that the Court can only record a compromise by way of any lawful agreement. However, in the instant case the compromise application has been filed contrary to the aforesaid provisions as contemplated in the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the defendant No,1 which the plaintiff and the defendants Nos.2 and 3 are bound to observe under the law. Therefore, it can very easily be said that the compromise application is not by way of any lawful agreement or compromise, therefore, the same is dismissed for the reasons noted above.
44. ' Practically speaking both the counsel for the parties have also extended extensive arguments, which are sufficient to decide the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, however, at the request of Mr. Muhammad Rahman Ghous, Advocate the hearing of the same is being deferred for the time being.