1. ' By this Appeal, the Appellant/Interveno.r impugned the Final Order dated 30.10.2014, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, thereby rejected Appellant's Application under section 12(2), C.P.C., bearing J.M. No,31 of 2014, filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 21.02.2009, in Suit No,589/1999, whereby the said Suit of the Respondent No,1, was decreed.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent No,4, by way of Public Auction Notice in Daily Dawn and Jang invited offers for the sale of land, commercial, residential, flat sites, amenity (KTCs/SR Depos/ Workshops) and agricultural, in and around Karachi, Hyderabad, Sukkur, Larkana and Mirpurkhas Divisions, as per the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The Respondent No,1, after registration participated in the Auction Proceedings and being interested in Plot Nos.ST-4/A and ST-4/6, Block-5/A, Paposhnagar Bus Terminal, Nazimabad, Karachi, measuring 0.47 Acre, for which Reserved Price was fixed at Rs,3000/- per Sq. Yd., offered a Bid of Rs,3100/- per Sq. Yd., before the fall of hammer and then initially paid Rs,17,67,775/- (Rs,15,00,000/- by way of Pay Order and Rs,2,67,775/- in cash) being 25% of the Bid Amount vide Receipt No,110, dated 14th May 1998. The Pay Order was subsequently presented and encashed by the Official Respondents.
3. ' Thereafter, the Respondent No,1, offered the Balance Amount to the Official Respondents and made repeated attempts for the finalization of the said contract, but that went in vain. The Section Officer (Transport-I), for Secretary to the Government of Sindh, sent a Letter dated 17th December, 1998, to the Respondent No,1, thereby informed that the Cabinet Division of Sindh, Privatization Committee, has rejected the Respondent No,l's Bid for the said Property, wherein no reason was assigned for the same. The Respondent No,1, after giving Legal Notice to the Official Respondents, filed the Suit No:584/1999, for Specific Performance of Contract, in this Court, which was decreed vide judgment dated 21.02.2009, the High Court Appeal No,206/2009, filed against the same, was dismissed for non-prosecution on 24.05.2011, the Respondent No,1, filed Execution Application No,77/2011, which was allowed vide Order dated 23.01.2014, and the same was impugned by Respondent No,4, through High Court Appeal No,104/2014, which was dismissed as barred by time vide Order dated 07.04.2015, and prior to that the Nazir of the Court executed the Registered Sale Deed on 27.02.2014, of the said property in favour of the Respondent No,1, after receipt of balance amount and completion of other acquired formalities. On 05.06.2014, the Appellant filed Application under section 12(2), C.P.C., which was numbered as J.M. No,31/2014, and in response to the same the Respondent No,1, filed his Counter Affidavit thereby opposing the said Application. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the arguments dismissed the said Application vide Impugned Order in this Appeal.
4. ' Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Parties, gone through the Impugned Order and the Record available in the matter.
5. ' Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Impugned Final Order is bad in law and facts and the said Property auctioned in the matter is the Bus Stand, which is an Amenity Plot and was not to be auctioned, the Respondent/Sindh Privatization Committee, has already rejected the Bid of the Respondent No,1/Auction Purchaser, so the Impugned Order is liable to be set aside and relied on the case of Sehri and others v. Province of Sindh, reported in 2001 YLR 1134, case of Haji Rehnzdil v. Province of Baluchistan, reported in 1999 SCM R 1060, case of R. v. NAT BELL Liquors, Ltd., reported in 1922 All England Law Reports Reprint 335, and case of Anisminc v.. Foreign Compensation Commission, reported in 1969 All England Law Reports 208. Learned A.A.G, also supported the same.
6. ' Whereas the learned Counsel for Respondent No,1, contended that the Suit of the Respondent No,1, after evidence was decreed, Execution Application, after notice and proceeding, allowed and the Appeals filed against the same have also been dismissed. Further the Sale Deed has been executed and registered. In favour of Respondent No,1, in respect of the said Property, as per the Report of the Nazir, wherein it has been shown that around the said Plot/Property there are shops and even the Respondent No,1, has referred to the Agreement of Tenancy dated 23rd September, 2002, whereby a Transport Corporation has rented out a space to one Muhammad Shahideen, and the said property at the time of auction was shown to be a commercial one, further submits the appellant has no locus standi to tile Application under section 12(2), C.P.C., and has not shown any ground in terms of Section 12(2), C.P.C., which is also barred by time and as such lastly submits that the Impugned Order is legal and proper in all respects. Learned Counsel relied upon the case of Happy Family Associate v. P.I.T.C., reported in PLD 2006 SC 226, Case of Blue Star Spinning Mills Limited v. Collector of Sales Tax, reported in 2013 SCM R 587, and case of Ghulam Sarwar v.
7. Muhammad Hussain, reported in 1987 SCM R 1440.
8. ' We have observed that by Sindh Government Notification No, SOVI (S&GAD) 7(36)97, dated 24.6.1997, Privatization Committee, was constituted and consisted of Chief Minister and others including Minister for Transport and they put a Bus Stand/said Property for the sale in auction, wherein the Appellant's bid offer'being higher to reserved price was accepted after initial payments and the Appellao got Registered Sale Deed of the said property. The Appellant/Intervenor contended that the same could not be put to auction by relying on case of Shehri (Supra), which is not of any help to the Appellant as in that very case Sindh Road Transport Corporation, itself sold Bus Stand and the learned Division Bench of this Court has observed that said Corporation was at liberty to sell and dispose its land, comprising of workshops, Bus Depot, Terminal Bus Stand etc., but has not disapproved the sale of such type of properties.
9. ' Further we have also observed that around the said property there are shops out of which for one shop a Tenancy Agreement between the Transport Corporation and one Muhammad Shaheedin, has been produced by the Respondent No,1, and in the Auction Notice the said property has been mentioned as Paposh Nagar Bus Stand and even as per Nazir's Report dated 19.12.2013, of this Court, at the execution stage, also shows that there are number of shops around said plot/property, which apparently is being used as commercial one.
10. ' Further as per Appellant's contention the said plot/property was rightly cancelled by the Sindh Privatization Commission, vide Minutes of its Meeting dated 27.5.1998, being bus terminal/stop, is incorrect, as the same shows that the bid offers of the parties were rejected on the ground that same were below the reserved price, whereas in respect of said property in this matter, the bid of the Respondent No,1, for the same was above the reserved price, initial payments were made and received and encashed, and as such the suit of the respondent No,1, has been decreed, which have already been executed.
11. ' We have also observed that in view of the said Notification dated 24.6.1997, a said Committee comprising of Minister for Transport, Secretary of Government of Sindh, Chief Secretary Sindh, Secretary Law and other members, was constituted for auction purpose, and Letter No, SO (T-1)13- 17/97/dated 7.12.1998, whereby rejection of bid offer of Respondent No,l's was signed and communicated by Section Officer (Transport-T) for Secretary to Government of Sindh and the said Suit was filed against Government of Sindh and Privatization Company, who have contested the matter and went in Appeals and after disposal of the same and execution of the decree, the Department of Transport i.e, Appellant/Intervenor, directly has filed an Application under section 12(2), C.P.C, wherein no reasons shown for their earlier nonappearance and late filing of such Application and even otherwise the Government of Sindh and Privatization Commission contested the matter and as the Appellant was having no locus standi file such Application.
12. ' Even otherwise, we find that the Appellant has not been able to plead any plea of fraud, misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction in terms of Section 12(2) of C.P.C., in their such Application, which was also filed after more than five years, from the date of passing the Decree and nor have given any explanation for the same, rather the learned Counsel for the Appellant and Respondent No,1, have relied on the cases of Haji Rehmdil (supra) and Blue Star (supra) respectively, which are not of any help to the parties, in view of the fact that there is no void judgment or order in the matter, rather the Appellant have filed Application under Section 12(2), C.P.C., after the Judgment/Decree and execution thereof and even after dismissal of the appeal against the same.
13. As such no reference can be made to the case of Happy Family Associates and Ghulam Sarwar (supra). Moreover, the judgment, Decree and Order allowing of this Execution Application were impugned by the Official Respondents, which were dismissed and the Nazir has executed Registered Sale Deed for the said Plot/Property in favour of the Appellant, so there is nothing left in the matter, as such the Impugned Order of learned Single Judge does not require interference in this Appeal, which was accordingly dismissed along with listed Applications by way of our short Order dated 22.01.2016, and the above are the reasons for such dismissal.