' MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, J.---This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, calls in question the validity of the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 19-1-2001, whereby Writ Petition No,14502 of 2000 of the petitioner, was dismissed.
2. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that suit of respondent No,1 for recovery of Rs,49,78,668 was decreed ex parte against respondent No,2 on 29-6-1999, whereafter the decree-holder initiated execution proceedings against the judgment-debtor, wherein warrant of attachment of the membership of Islamabad Stock Exchange of the judgment-debtor was issued. The petitioner challenged the order of the Chairman, Modaraba Tribunal, dated 28-6-2000, whereby its objection to the attachment of the membership of the judgment-debtor of Islamabad Stock Exchange, was overruled. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed F.A.O. No,201 of 2000 before the Lahore High Court, which was found to be not maintainable, thereafter it filed Writ Petition No,14502 of 2000, which has been dismissed vide its judgment, dated 29-1-2001, impugned herein.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the membership of the Islamabad Stock Exchange belongs to the Stock Exchange as according to Article 19 of the Memorandum and articles of Association of the Islamabad Stock Exchange, t memb r cannot assign, mortgage, pledge, hypothecate or charge his right of membership or any rights or privileges s attached thereto to anybody. He also referred to Article 20 to contend that a member of not less than two years standing cannot transfer the membership to anybody in any case. He further submitted that the objection petition filed by the petitioner could_ not be summarily rejected and the executing Court under Order XXI, Rule 58, C.P.C. Was bound to investigate into the objections by recording evidence. He also referred to section 60, C.P.C. And contended that properties enumerated in section 60 do not include membership of Stock Exchange, therefore, the membership of the Stock Exchange could not be attached in execution proceedings.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the decree-holders referred to clause (o) of Article 20, which provides that membership would not be transferable through sale for the first 5 years from the date of registration of the Exchange under the Securities and Exchange Ordinance. He submitted that 5 years' period has elapsed long ago, therefore, the membership has become transferable and saleable and thus the executing Court was justified to attach the membership of tne judgment-debtor being a property, in execution of the decree. In this regard, reliance was placed on (PLD 1990 SC 1092), wherein it was observed:-- "Raja Muhammad Akram, Advocate has by reference to Edeard D. Page (Banking) v. Charles W.
Edmunds (47 U.S. L. Ed 596), Citizens National Bank of Cincinnati v. Peter W. Durr (66 U.S. L. Ed 107) and para. 12, page 574 of 73 American Jurisprudence (2nd ed), tried to demonstrate that membership of a stock exchange, a seat on the stock exchange is property, a very valuable one for that matter, capable of being transferred or disposed of on certain conditions. True, but the membership of Stock Exchange is not limited to promoters, sponsors or DirectoRs, In what manner the sponsors, the Directors and the promoters are more privileged or distinguished as against the members is not shown."
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find no substance in the present petition as it seems to be designed to prolong the execution in order to defeat the money decree passed in favour of the decree-holder. As far as first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, its answer is provided in clause (o) of Article 20 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association, which states that the membership shall not be transferable through sale for the first five years from the date of registration of the Exchange under the Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969. Since that period of five years from the date of registration of the Exchange has elapsed long ago, therefore, the membership has become saleable/transferable and could be attached in execution proceedings. As far Article 19 is concerned, it restricts a member that he would not assign, mortgage or pledge his right of membership or any rights or privileges attached thereto to any other person. The Court of competent jurisdiction can attach membership as a property in execution of a decree under clause (o) of Article 20 as aforesaid. With regard to the plea that objection petition was summarily rejected without recording any evidence, suffice would be to say that there was no need to record evidence as the dispute related to membership of the Exchange and .In that regard the Memorandum and Articles of Association was duly taken into consideration while deciding the objections by the executing Court as well as the High Court. We do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order, as such it warrants no interference, therefore, this petition being without merits is dismissed with costs and leave is refused.