JAVED 1QBAL, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19-12- 2002 whereby I.C.A preferred on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stated that facts of the case as enumerated in the judgment impugned are to the effect 'that respondents Nos.2 to 6 filed a winding-up petition (C.O. No,2 of 90) against respondent No,7, invoking the companies' jurisdiction of this Court and thereupon the learned Company Judge, vide judgment dated 12-3-1998 passed a winding-up order and two joint official liquidators were appointed. During the subsequent proceedings, the official liquidators disposed of the factory premises of the company, situated at Township Industrial Area, Kot Lakhpat, Lahore, for a sum of Rs,20.500 million, which bid was approved by the learned Company Judge, vide order dated a-5- 2001. The said total consideration price was paid to the official liquidators, the possession of the factory was delivered to the purchaser and the official liquidators were directed to execute the sale-deed in favour of the purchaser. It transpired, later on, that the appellants had cancelled the afore noted industrial plot from the name of Messrs Leatherier, which necessitated the filing of an application (C.M. No,676-L/2001 by the auction-purchaser before the learned Company Judge, which was disposed of vide order dated 6-12-2001", which was assailed by means of I.C.A which has been rejected, hence this petition.
3. It is urged with vehemence by Mr. Muhammad Rashid Ahmed, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner that the question of title qua plot in dispute has not been dilated upon and decided properly. It is contended that factual aspects of the controversy have not been appreciated in its true perspective and it has been ignored altogether that the plot in question is the property of Lahore Development Authority (petitioner). It is argued that learned Company Judge has erred while holding that Messrs Leatherite (Pvt.) Limited was the owner of the plot in question which was admittedly cancelled and therefore, Messrs Leatherite had no locus standi or concern whatsoever in this regard. It is contended that none of the parties in liquidation proceedings including the purchaser has ever approached the Director Estate Management, Lahore Development Authority (petitioner No,2) for ascertaining the ownership of the plot in question and no verification whatsoever was made regarding its status which was made subject- matter of liquidation and put to auction without examining the pivotal question as to who was the owner of the plot in question. It is contended that the plot in question was cancelled but Messrs Leatherite Limited had deliberately concealed this fact with ulterior motives from the Court. It is argued that official liquidator who should have taken due care and caution before putting the plot in question for auction regarding its ownership which was not done and petitioner cannot be penalized for the carelessness and casual approach of the official liquidator who committed grave illegality by putting the plot in question for auction without ascertaining its ownership which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice but this aspect of the matter has also been ignored without any rhyme or reason. It is contended emphatically that no such plot could have been allotted by the Lahore Development Authority except through open auction and therefore, it is beyond the competency of the petitioner to have complied with the order of learned Company Judge. In this regard reference has been made to the Disposal of land by Development Authorities (Regulation) Act, 1998 which, inter alia, provides that the properties belonging to the Development Authority cannot be sold except through an open auction by the Authority concerned. It is contended that the relevant provisions of said Act have been misconstrued and misinterpreted. It is also contended that the question qua the cancellation of said plot squarely falls within the jurisdictional domain of Lahore Development Authority and learned Company Judge had absolutely no jurisdiction to pass any order regarding allotment of the plot which stood cancelled on 10-3-1985 which fact was also brought to the notice of the learned Company Judge, but no attention was paid to this important aspect of the controversy causing serious prejudice to the case of petitioner. It is mentioned time and again that M/s Leatherite (Pvt.) Limited could not be treated as lawful owner having been deprived of title through cancellation of the plot by the petitioner under relevant Rules, Regulations, Scheme and Policy which were not taken into consideration by the learned Company Judge.
4. The above mentioned contentions are controverted strenuously by learned counsel on behalf of Caveator who supported the judgment impugned for the reasons enumerated therein with the further submissions that neither I.C.A was competent nor the Lahore Development Authority could be treated as owner of the plot which was admittedly allotted in favour of Messrs Leatherite Limited and no effective steps whatsoever were taken for its cancellation and the physical possession remained with the Messrs Leatherite Limited. It is urged emphatically that the petition being hopelessly barred by time should be dismissed. It was also argued that plot in question was auctioned at the direction of Court which cannot be challenged at all and valuable rights accrued as a result thereof cannot be infringed without sufficient lawful justification.
5. We have carefully considered the respective contentions as agitated on behalf of the parties in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case.
6. We must mention here at this juncture that the judgment impugned has not been delivered after having taken into consideration the merits of the case but it was dismissed on the ground of maintainability. We have perused the judgment of learned Company Judge which is indicative of the fact that it mainly prevailed upon the learned Company Judge that no practical steps were taken by Housing and Physical Planning Department as well as Lahore Development Authority and the cancellation of plot was made on papers having no legal sanctity. It also prevailed upon the learned Company Judge that Lahore Development Authority has not requested to get itself impleaded in the winding-up proceedings. In our considered opinion the above mentioned observations of the learned Company Judge are in oblivion of the fact that plot in question allotted to Messrs Leatherite Limited was cancelled on 10-3-1985 which fact was deliberately concealed from the Court but it was ignored by the learned Company Judge while reviving the allotment of the cancelled plot which was not in consonance with relevant provisions as contained in the Disposal of Land by the Development Authorities (Regulation) Act, 1998 which was to be sold through open auction instead of allotment.. The said controversial question having substantial bearing on the fate of case were not dilated upon and decided in a comprehensive manner which required an authoritative judgment which could not be delivered as the petitioners, were knocked out on the ground that I.C.A. Was not maintainable.
7. The contentions as agitated on behalf of the parties need consideration and accordingly leave is granted subject to question of limitation which will be examined at the time of arguments of the appeal in the light of chequered history of the case, inefficiency and lapses on the part of petitioner, deliberate concealment of cancellation of plot by. Messrs Leatherite Limited dictum of this Court laid down in case titled Hyderabad Development Authority v. Abdul Majeed (PLD 2002 Supreme Court 84) and expected colossal loss to the State Exchequer. The judgment impugned shall remain suspended till disposal of this appeal which may be fined at some early date.