' MUNAWAR AHMAD MIRZA, J.--- This order will dispose of two. Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos.175-K of 1995 and 234-K of 1995 filed in Civil Appeal No,256 of 1995 arising out of C.P.L.A. No,306- K of 1994, praying to reconsider the Civil Miscellaneous Applications. According to the applicants (legal representatives of respondent No,5) the first application (C.M.A. No,175-K of 1995) filed under Order XXXIII, rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 read with section 12(2), C.P.C. And the second application (C.M.A. No,234-K of 1995) filed under Order. V, rule 2 and Order XXXIII, rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 against returning by the Office of this Court C.M.A. No,175-K of 1995, are maintainable, as such the same may be heard on merits.
2. The applicants are two sons and two daughters of deceased respondent No,5. They assert that respondents Nos.1(a), 2(d) and 3(a) namely, Ghous Bux, Faisal and Salim Muhammad son of Muhammad, in conspiracy with each other, filed a petition for leave to appeal before this Court in order to deprive the applicants and other shareholders of their legal and valuable share of money.
It is also contended that aforesaid purpose being in view an application for compromise was submitted in this Court and without any notice upon the applicants and other respondents, the compromise application was got accepted despite the fact that said application for compromise was signed only by above mentioned three persons and with their counsel. It is the case of applicants that these three respondents, of which one Saleem Muhammad is the petitioner, played fraud on other respondents and for wrongful gain have ostensibly sold the property on paper for about 85,00,000 and Rs,2,00,000 which is otherwise worth several crores of rupees. The-applicants pray that the order, dated 14-3-1995 accepting the compromise be recalled, and compromise application (C.M.A. No,137-K of 1995) be rejected besides initiating action against the three said respondents as is deemed fit, in the circumstances.
3. Relevant facts for disposal of these applications are that a suit for administration between the parties was decreed and certain properties were ordered to be disposed of vide order dated 7-1- 1981 with the consent of parties. It was directed that they may also submit their offers for the bungalow as well as the other property, if they so desire, within one week, to the Official Assignee.
Again, on 20-12-1982, another order was passed in respect of two properties, "Naz Cinema" and "Yousuf Building" whereby it was ordered that offers for these properties will be invited from the heirs of the deceased who are parties in the suit. It was also ordered that offers jointly or severally ought to be made by all the heirs of deceased parties within one month of the order.
4. The legal heirs of the plaintiffs submitted offer on 24-4-1983 giving a bid of Rs,85,00,000 for Naz Cinema and Rs,2,00,000 for Yousuf Building. The offer made jointly through Ghous Bux attorney was accepted by the Court vide order dated 15-9-1985 but no time with regard to payments by bidders was specified in this order. Appeal (H.C.A. No,24 of 1983) was filed against this order which was disposed of in favour of the bidders. The defendant No,1 then moved a petition for leave to appeal but the same was refused. In the meanwhile, certain persons encroached upon portions of properties while some portions were transferred to Military Authorities. The plaintiffs, thereafter, filed another appeal (H.C.A. No,92 of 1985), and 'deposited the sum of Rs,79,77,500 only towards the bid money after adjusting their share. The Official Assignee then made reference to the Court for issuance of the final order which was decided and allowed on 4-1-1994; accepting the amount deposited with directions to hand over possession to the plaintiffs through their attorney or nominee. Appeal (H.C.A. No,2 of 1994) taken against the aforesaid order passed on reference was also dismissed by the learned Judges of High Court of Sindh, Karachi, vide judgment dated 27-10- 1994.
5. The present applicants admittedly did, not challenge either the order dated 4-1-1994 passed on reference in Suit No,230 of 1968, nor did they challenge the order dated 27-10-1994 passed in appeal. Saleem Muhammad, however, filed a petition for leave to appeal (No,306-K of 1994) in this Court challenging the acceptance of the deposit made. A Civil Miscellaneous Application (No,137-K of 1995) seeking disposal of the petition for leave to appeal on the basis of compromise signed by Saleem Muhammad petitioner and his counsel, Ghous Bux respondent No,1(a) for self and as attorney of respondents Nos.1(b) to 1(g) and Faisal Jawairy, respondent No,2(d) for self and as attorney for respondents Nos.2(a) to 2(c) and 2(e) as well as their learned counsel was filed. This Compromise Application was accepted and the petition was converted into appeal and disposed of in terms of compromise.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that as the compromise application was accepted without notice to them, the order dated 14-3-1995 disposing the appeal in terms of the compromise merits to be recalled.
7. The effect of order dated 14-3-1995 is that the order passed in appeal (H.C.A. No,2 of 1994) affirming order dated 4-1-1994 and accepting the amount deposited in pursuance to the bid given by the abovenoted respondents holds the field. The present applicants have admittedly not challenged the order dated 4-1-1994 accepting the bid of the plaintiffs. As such, the disposal of the petitioner's petition for leave to appeal/appeal in terms of the compromise has not caused any prejudice to them. They have as such no genuine grievance to make. Though technically it is correct that they being pro forma respondents in the petition for leave to appeal should have been given notice of filing the compromise application, it is pertinent to note that even Saleem Muhammad, who had filed the petition for leave to appeal must have issued notices to the present applicants who were respondents Nos.5(a) to 5(d) while filing the petition for leave to appeal, but they on their own showing did not prefer to enter appearance in this Court. They, in the given circumstances, cannot complain about failure to provide hearing before disposing the petition for leave to appeal or its conversion into appeal and disposal in terms of the compromise.
8. It is true that they have not signed the compromise application and as such obviously they are not bound by the compromise arrived at between concerned respondents and Saleem Muhammad, the petitioner. However, this will not vitiate this Court's order, dated 14-3-1995 disposing of the above petition as the applicants having not challenged the order, dated 4-1-1994 accepting the bid; obviously are deemed to have accepted the same.
9. With these observations, both these application having no merits, are dismissed.