1. NAIMUDDIN, J.-This High Court Appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance is directed against the order dated 27th May, 1978, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby he allowed the application under Order VI1, rule 11, C. P. C. Filed by the respondent and held that the suit filed by the appellant had abated under clause k3) of the Martial Law Order No. 18.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated, are that the appellant in August, 1977, filed a suit, being Suit No. 399 of 1977, for possession of a plot of land measuring 37,2[4.67 sqr. Yds. Situated at Abdullah Haroon Road, Hoshang Road, Karachi, which was allegedly leased out for 99 years on an annual rent of Rs. 14,88,600 at the rate of Rs. 400 per square yard.
3. During the pendency of the suit on 31-8-1977, the Martial Law Order No. 18 was promulgated which in clause (1), provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, all contracts or agree--ments or lease deeds, other than contracts, or agreements or lease deeds secured on the basis of public auction or public offers, made between the period from 1st January, 1977 to 4th July, 1977, between the President of Pakistan, acting through the Pakistan Railway Administration, and any person other than a Government department or any agency or authority controlled by the Government, for the lease of Railway Land for a term exceeding ten years are hereby declared void and shall be deemed always to have been void.
4. The Martial Law Order No. 18 in clause (3) further provides that no proceedings shall lie in any Court, including the Supreme Court and a High Court, for enforcement of the alleged contract agreement or lease referred to in paragraph 1 and all proceedings pending in any Court for the enforce--ment of any such alleged contract, agreement or lease shall abate forthwith.
5. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application under Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C. Praying for rejection of the plaint. Thereupon, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order holding that the suit had abated.
6. We have heard Mr. Khalid Ishaque, Advocate for the appellant.
7. The counsel has submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the suit had abated for according to him, the suit was not only for possession of the land leased but also for damages in the sum of Rs. 30,00,000 for losses allegedly suffered by the appellant from 10-2-1977 to 10-8-1977 and future losses at the rate of Rs. 60,00,000 per year with interest at 9 % per annum from the date of suit till recovery. However, the submission of the learned counsel loses sight of the provisions of Clause (2) of the Martial Law Order No. 18 which provides that no compensation shall be payable to any person claiming under any alleged contract, agreement or lease referred to in paragraph 1 on account of its having been declared void under that paragraph.
8. The lease in question was therefore, clearly hit by Clause (1).
9. Now, since under Martial Law Order No. 18 all contracts, agreement. And leases entered into between the period from 1st. January, 1977 to 4th July, 1977 are declared void with retrospective effect and since no compensation is payable on account of the lease having become void, therefore, no cause of action even for the damages claimed in the suit survived. Consequently, the application under order VII, rule 11, C. P. C. Was.. Rightly allowed by the learned Single Judge.
10. We, accordingly find no substance in this appeal and consequently dismiss it in limine.