1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J. -The appellant called in question in the High Court by a Writ Petition the order of the Custodian of Evacuee Property that the appellant and its property were evacuee. The matter coming up before a Division Bench, the petition was dismissed on 25th April 1966, on the ground that in the meantime the appellant had become an enemy alien and under para. 4(iv) of the Enemy Property (Custodian and Registration) Order, 1965, framed under the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965, it had no locus standi to continue with the petition. Reliance was placed on Reference No. 1 of 1965 (PLD 1966 Kar.160).
2. The power of attorney filed by Mr. Ihsanul Haq, Advocate, on behalf of the Custodian, Enemy Property, to continue with the petition was also rejected on the ground that "he was not a party to the proceedings and even if he was the position could not in any way, be different.
3. Leave to appeal was given to consider whether the High Court had rightly refused to allow the Custodian of Enemy Property to continue with the writ petition.
4. The view expressed by the High Court was plainly incorrect. Clause (iv) of sub-para (2) of Paragraph 4 of the aforementioned Order expressly gives a right to the Custodian of Enemy Property to "institute", defend or continue any suit or other legal proceed--ings, refer any dispute to arbitration and compromise any debts, claims or liabilities". A writ petition is certainly "other legal proceedings" which the Custodian could continue in the High Court. The decision reported in PLD 1966 Kar. 160 is based on the provisions of section 83 of the Civil Procedure Code, but at page 172 of the Report it is remarked :- "(2) The suits in which the defendants are enemy aliens can proceed. If the enemy property is involved and vests in the Custodian of Enemy Property it is open to him to continue or defend the suit."
5. As seen the Custodian of Enemy Property had appointed Mr. Ihsanul Haq as his Advocate to continue with the Writ Petition, but contrary to the provisions of Rule 4(iv), the learned Judges did not permit him to continue with it. It appears that the attention of the learned Judges was not drawn to the rule as well as to the observations in the Karachi case reproduced above.
6. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the case is remanded to the High Court for disposal is accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.