This is an appeal under section 104 of Civil Procedure Code read with section 18 of Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 by Alam Zaib Khan against the order dated 8-7-2000 of Civil Judge, Mansehra, whereby the application of Mst. Gul Bahar Bibi respondent dated 14-2-2000 was accepted and Account No,4910 of the appellant lying in Main Branch National Bank of Pakistan, Mansehra, was attached till the conclusion of suit.
2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are, that Suit No,187/1 of 2000 was instituted by Mst. Gul Bahar Bibi on 14-2-2000 against Alam Zaib Khan in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mansehra seeking a declaration to the effect that she was owner in possession of land, detailed in the headnote of the plaint and Mutation No,29308 attested on 25-5-1987 in the name of Alam Zaib Khan appellant, was illegal, void and inoperative against her rights. She also sought a declaration to the effect that she was owner in possession of another piece of land, described in the headnote of the plaint by virtue of inheritance of her mother Mst. Muhammad-un-Nisa and as such Mutation No,28603 was illegal, fraudulent and result of collusion between the respondent and Revenue staff and thus was inconsequential against her rights. According to Mst. Gul Bahar Bibi she was entitled for recovery of Rs,5,80,016.42 granted to the appellant as compensation for the afore- said land acquired through Award No,185 dated 30-6-1996.
3. Alongwith the suit an application for issuance of warrant of attachment in respect of the Account under reference, was also made. The application was resisted and the claim of the lady was totally denied. The application was accepted and the Account under reference was attached per the impugned order.
4. Malik Muhammad Asif, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant attempted to argue that the respondent had no concern with the amount in question and as such the learned Trial Judge had no justifiable reason to order attachment of the Account in absence of any material on record titling in favour of the respondent. The learned counsel also contended that mandatory provisions of law contained in Order XXXVIII, rules 5 and 6, C.P.C. had not been complied with before issuing the impugned order which has materially prejudiced the rights of the appellant. The learned counsel also added that trial Court has acted illegally in the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it under the law and in the interest of justice this is eminently a fit case for interference of this Court.
He relied on 'Faqir Ali v. Muhammad Hayat (PLD 1976 Lahore 298).
5. On the contrary Mr. Nisar Hussain Khan, Advocate for the respondent, supported the impugned order and subniitted that on the one hand the appeal is not maintainable whereas on the other no illegality or irregularity has been pointed out in the impugned order to warrant interference of this Court. He relied on Mohiuddin Molla v. The Province of East Pakistan, etc. (PLD 1962 SC 119), Mirza Zaid Baig v. Ghaffar Ahmad and another (PLD 1982 Karachi 293) and Messrs Sports World and others v. Lattest Fabrics and others (1995 M LD 1707).
6. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the record with their assistance.
7. It is well-established that all procedural laws are subservient to the cause of justice and therefore, such laws neither limit nor control the power of the Court to pass an order or decree which is necessary to do full justice in the facts and circumstances of the case. Interpretation of procedural law as held by the superior Courts, in a manner, it tends to obstruct the course of justice has to be avoided as far as possible.
8. In the instant case Mst. Gul Bahar Bibi respondent herein claims ownership in possession of suit- land. The stand taken by the lady is that she had not transferred the suit property in favour of Alam Zaib Khan appellant herein and mutations attested in this respect are bogus and fraudulent and of no legal effect. The suit property has been acquired by the Provincial Government on the basis of Award No,185 announced on 30-61996. The compensation money of the land thus acquired has been awarded to the appellant. The amount is lying in Main Branch National Bank of Pakistan, Mansehra. The amount has been attached through the impugned order so the same may not be drawn by the appellant with a view to defeat the decree likely to be passed in favour of the respondent. In the circumstances, I find that the impugned order is perfectly correct and no cogent reasons could be put forward to believe that any illegality, material irregularity or miscarriage of justice causing appreciable harm has occasioned warranting interference of this Court.
9. It is evident from the order sheets maintained by the lower Court that the evidence of the plaintiff-respondent has already been recorded and closed and matter is fixed for evidence of the appellant-defendant. The suit is likely to reach the final stage in near future. In the circumstances I do not consider it appropriate to upset the order of the trial Court and withdraw the order of attachment.
10.So far as the question regarding maintainability or otherwise of the appeal in hand is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent' has not been able to pursuade me to hold that the appeal is not maintainable and thus requires dismissal straightaway.
11.Pursuant to the discussion, the appeal fails which is hereby dismissed and the impugned order is maintained. The parties are left to bear their own costs. 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.