C.M. 01-2015 This is an application under Section 151, CPC for consolidation of different applications pending before this Court.
2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent (who is counsel for the applicant in CM No. 1-2013 (filed for resurrection of Intra Court Appeal No. 754-2012, C.M.3-2013 and CM.2-2014) wishes to withdraw his applications.
3. With the concurrence of both the learned counsels, let afore-noted applications may be fixed for today; Office to do the needful.
4. CM. stands disposed of. C.M. Nos. 1-2013, 3-2013 & 2-2014 C.M. No. 1-2013 is an application under Section 151, CPC for restoration of the Intra Court Appeal No. 754-2012 which was disposed of as having become infrastructure on 05.06.2013. C.M. No. 1-2013 is an application for stay of proceedings before the trial Court and CM. No. 2-2014 is an application for restraining the judgment debtors from alienating their properties.
2. The facts in brief are that a suit under Order 37, CPC was decreed in favor of the applicant to the tune of Rs. 70.638 million. He applied for a certified copy of the judgment & decree which was not provided, because of which, he filed W.P. No. 10415-2012 seeking a direction from this Court for the afore-noted purpose. A report was called for by the learned Single Judge which was submitted by Member Inspection Team. Through this report, it was revealed that the learned Additional District Judge announced the judgment on 26.03.2012, however on the next dale, defendants Sifat Elahi etc. submitted a complaint before the Honorable Inspection Judge Lahore that learned Additional District Judge has failed to record written judgment in accordance with provisions of CPC. The Honorable Inspection Judge through a written order dated 27.03.2012 directed to take proper account, whereupon the office of District &. Session Judge Lahore immediately requisitioned the case file and sealed the same.
3. The report would further reveal that when the case file was taken in possession, it did not contain the judgment and decree; the Stenographer of the Court was busy in typing the judgment. It was also reported that on the next day i.e. 28.03.2012. the learned Additional District Judge after completion of judgment & decree has forwarded the same to the office for placing it in the relevant file, upon which, guidance was sought from this Court.
4. After perusal of the report, vide order dated 27.09.2012, writ petition was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, applicant preferred Intra Court Appeal No. 754-2012 which was set down for hearing before the learned Division Bench of this Court. During the course of proceedings on 05.06.2012, following order was passed: "The learned counsel for the appellant submits, under instructions, that due to subsequent events the instant appeal has become infrucuous. The appellant, therefore, does not wish to press the appeal.
2. Disposed of as having become infrucluous "
5. After the aforenoted order, C.M. 01-2013 was filed in which on 18.06.2013, notices were issued to the respondents. In the meantime as no judgment and decree was available in the record of the trial Court, the record was de-sealed and proceedings commenced before the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved applicant preferred C.M. 03-2013 through which a prayer was made that proceedings pending before the trial Court may be suspended, which was allowed on 4.7.2013. Thereafter, C.M.
02-2014 was filed, through which, a prayer was made that the judgment debtors are alienating their properties in order to frustrate the decree, therefore, they may be restrained. Vide order dated 24.07.2014, respondent/judgment debtors were restrained from alienating the properties.
6. In the above back drop, on the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the applicants were confronted with the situation that once the Intra Court Appeal was withdrawn on instructions, how could the same be resurrected and thereupon, interim orders can be passed. Learned counsel at that point in time tried to justify the proceedings initiated, however, they sought an adjournment to assist this Court further. Today, Sardar Faiz Rasul Khan Jalbani Advocate, learned counsel for the applicant has entered appearance and submits that he has instructions, to withdraw the applications.
7. We are mindful of the fact that the applications were not competent yet the applicant managed to procure prohibitory orders which we were inclined to recall, however, in the peculiar circumstances as a request for withdrawal of application has been made, we asked the learned counsel for the respondents whether he has any objection to such withdrawal, his answer was in the negative.
8. In view of the afore-noted, these applications are dismissed as withdrawn.
9. As the main application has been withdrawn, therefore, Review Application No. 54-2014 has become infrastructure therefore the same is also disposed of. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.