1. ' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---These four appeals with special leave are directed against the impugned judgment, dated 27-10-1983 of High Court of Sindh at Karachi, in four High Court Appeals, in which order of sale of properties passed by learned Judge in Chamber is maintained with some modification stated therein. Briefly stated the facts are as under:- ' House Building Finance Corporation, appellant before us and would be referred hereafter for the sake of convenience as appellant-corporation, advanced loan of Rs, 8 lass to each borrower (Co- operative House Building Society), named in each of these four appeals as respondent No,1, to be referred hereafter as borrower, to construct building on the plot on terms and conditions mentioned in the registered mortgage-deed executed on 17-5-1963 (wrongly dated as 17-3-1963 in the Index of the paper book) under the provisions of House Building Finance Corporation Act XVIII of 1952 (hereinafter to be referred as the said Act) and Rules and Regulations made thereunder. Loan was to be paid to the borrower by fixed instalments specified therein on interest of 6-1/4 per cent. It appears that on account of breach of terms and conditions of the mortgage-deed, notice of recall of loan was issued by appellant-corporation to the borrower and respondents Nos. 2 and 3, who are sureties, calling upon them to repay the said loan. Application under section 30 of the said Act was filed by appellant-corporation in the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan at Karachi, which was registered as J.M. Application No,32 of 1971, against the borrower, two sureties and five other respondents executed guarantees. It was averred in the application that borrower had failed to repay monthly instalments of Rs, 6,884, hence entire balance of loan amounting to Rs, 9,41,387.73 including interest upto 30th September, 1970 was due to be recovered. Prayer in the application was made for order of sale of plot with building constructed thereupon and mortgaged with appellant-corporation and also attachment and sale of properties of respondents Nos. 2 to 8.
2. ' Sureties who were impleaded as respondents Nos.2 and 3 in the said application, filed objections/written statement alleging that action of appellant-corporation in filing application in the High Court was mala fide for the reason that breach was committed of terms and conditions by the appellant-corporation and not by them. Difficulty was felt in constructing of the buildings at the same time, hence it was agreed by the parties and appellant-corporation that loan to each society would be transferred to its 48 individual members, rate of construction for granting loan would be increased, all societies would execute Indemnity Bonds, whereby one society would stand guarantee for loan payment by others and loan would be transferred from societies to members on completion of each building. It was further decided and agreed between the parties that building on one plot was to be completed at a time out of the instalments paid in respect of other societies. With regard to the liability of repayment of loan, objection was taken by sureties that first property mortgaged with appellant-corporation is to be sold. Respondents Nos.4 to 8 in the said application in their objections took the stand that they had executed Indemnity Bonds which have been repudiated by appellant-corporation, as such cannot be allowed to be enforced by them.
3. There was application for interim relief filed by appellant-corporation on which initially order was passed that respondents gave an undertaking not to alienate or dispose of the mortgaged properties and subsequently vide order, dated 9-10-1977 interim order of attachment was passed in respect of the plots with buildings constructed thereupon and mortgaged with appellant- corporation. Subsequently, it was suggested that if buildings were sold, actual flat owners would be subjected to inconvenience and they would be ready to deposit in the Court, their dues to be paid to the societies which could be paid to the appellant-corporation. Vide order, dated 15-5-1978 notices were issued to the flat owners by publication in newspapers and Official Assignee was appointed as Commissioner to prepare a complete report showing amounts due to the appellant- corporation and realised from flat owners in each case. After that some other orders were passed, which need not be mentioned as they would be unnecessary for present purposes and finally vide order, dated 15-10-1980, learned Judge in Chamber in the High Court disposed of the said application in terms mentioned in last paragraph which is reproduced as under:- "In view of the above-discussed position I am of the view that there is no justification for ordering the sale of whole of the mortgaged property in these cases as more than half of the dues of the applicant has by now been recovered in these proceedings. The list of the defaulting allottees is still substantial and it is not denied that if only these flats are sold the balance amount due to applicant will be recovered. I accordingly order that in the first instance all these flats which are mentioned in the list Annexures "A", "B", "C" and "D" of the report of official assignee dated 24-3-1980 be sold by public auction towards realisation of the dues of applicant and if after sale of these flats some amount still remains due and payable then other properties mentioned in these applications will be sold for realisation of the balance. The expenses relating to sale proceedings will be borne by the applicant in the first instance and same will be recoverable afterwards from the sale proceeds. There be no order as to costs."
4. ' Order mentioned above was challenged in four High Court Appeals vide judgment, dated 27-10- 1983, was maintained but with modification to the extent stated as under:- "But since the claim of the appellants could be satisfied by sale of only some portions of the said properties therefore the sale will take place flat wise and those flat owners who owe Rs25,000 or more to the respective Co-operative Housing Societies on the date of issue of proclamation of sale their flats will be rust sold in the order that whoever owes more to the respective Societies his flat will be first sold. The OA. Will make a list of the flat owners after making the adjustments of payments made by them. If any part of decretal amount still remains unsatisfied then the flats of other owners who owe lesser amounts will be sold in the order that whoever owes more his flat shall be sold first and the sale will be stopped as soon as the entire decretal amount is satisfied."
5. ' Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid, learned ASC for appellant-corporation contended before us that properties of guarantors and sureties also should have been attached and sold and High Court has erred in refusing such prayer of appellant-corporation. It was further submitted by him that appellant-corporation was entitled to such relief as is provided under section 30 of the said Act.
6. Section 30 relates to special provisions for enforcement of claim by the Corporation and does provide for an order for the sale of any property or properties pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated or assigned to the Corporation as security for the sums due by the borrower as is contemplated under section 30(1)(a) of the said Act. In all these four cases under appeals in the mortgage-deeds executed plots with buildings thereupon to be constructed have been mortgaged as such. So in the first instance steps are to be taken for sale of the property which is mortgaged for repayment and if proceeds from such sale are inadequate and full amount is not adjusted then for recovery of balance steps can be taken in respect of other securities. Our attention has been drawn to mortgage-deed which clearly shows that plots described therein with buildings to be constructed thereupon, have been mortgaged by borrower with appellant-corporation on terms and conditions mentioned therein. There is no dispute about the fact that letter of guarantee for loans executed by the respondents Nos.2 and 3 shows that they are jointly and severally liable for repayment of loan on account of default in the payment of instalments and in such case it is open to appellant-corporation to demand loan money either from borrower or from all or anyone of the two guarantors. Likewise Indemnity Bonds executed by societies and available in the record show that the societies have undertaken to indemnify the appellant-corporation for any loss that it might sustain in case of non-performance or breach of any covenant in the mortgage-deed by borrowers.
7. ' One thing is noteworthy that in the Indemnity Bonds property is not mentioned for the purpose of indemnifying the loss.
8. Section 30 of the said Act has laid down proper procedure for enforcement of claim by the Corporation and also has spelled out powers of the Court. Court is competent, on such application filed by the Corporation, to pass order for sale of any property or properties pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated or assigned to the Corporation as security for the sums due by the borrower. Court can pass order of injunction restraining borrower from in any manner removing transferring or disposing of any of the properties mentioned above, in respect of which order of sale can be passed. It is within the powers of the Court to pass an order of ad interim attachment in respect of properties mentioned above and such other properties of the borrower which are sufficient in the opinion of the Court to cover the claim of the Corporation against the borrower including costs and interest. After application is filed by the Corporation the Court can pass ad interim orders granting such relief as it deems fit and proper and issue notice to the borrower and after hearing him the application can be disposed of by recording the finding as to the amount due by the borrower to the Corporation and interest payable thereon. It is open to and within the powers of the Court to direct or refuse to direct the sale of properties attached and to confirm, discharge or vary any ad interim orders passed restraining the borrower or attaching first his properties and pass any other incidental orders. Above provisions of section 30 of the said Act manifestly show that Corporation cannot insist upon sale of properties in the manner desired by it and in that context extensive discretionary powers are given to the Court under the said Act to see that claim of the Corporation is satisfied in a satisfactory manner as deemed fit and proper by the Court within the limits prescribed therein and stated above.
9. ' Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, learned Sr. ASC for respondent has submitted that first order of attachment, dated 9-10-1977 passed by learned Judge in Chamber providing for attachment of property of borrowers mortgaged with appellant-corporation and refusing attachment of properties of sureties and guarantors was not challenged by appellant-corporation even at the stage of final hearing and further advantage was taken by appellant-corporation of order passed by learned Judge in Chamber on 15-5-1978 by appellant-corporation by withdrawing the amounts deposited in the Court in compliance of that order. He has fully supported the orders passed in the High Court by learned Judges in Chambers and judgment impugned in this appeal to be proper and according to law.
10. For the facts and reasons stated above, we are of the view that judgment of the High Court impugned in these appeals is unexceptionable with which no interference is warranted. These appeals merit dismissal and are dismissed as such with no order as to costs.