KARACHI, Dec 4: The Sindh High Court has dismissed an application seeking an order to vary/modify the ad-interim attachment of a property with a direction to the relevant official not to prepare inventory of the property.

Justice Shabbir Ahmed of the Sindh High Court passed the order in the IDBP (petitioner) vs Hyderabad Beverages (respondents) case, while disposing of the petition filed by Ghazala Akhtar under order 21 rule 58, read with sections 151 CPC and 39 (10) of the Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan Ordinance, for the release of the property in Latifabad.

The petitioner had obtained an order of interim attachment of the properties owned by the respondents.

One of the terms for restructuring of the dues was that in case of default in payment of any two consecutive instalments of the restructured liability or to commit breach of any terms of the package dated 22.9.1998, the package would be withdrawn without any notice and attached property in terms of the court order dated 9-5-1997 shall be sold through an official assignee.

Justice Shabbir observed that it appeared that the respondents defaulted in liquidating the liability in terms of the agreement.

The petitioner prayed the court for attachment and sale of the properties for the realization of the dues amounting to Rs32,106,099.86 as on May 15, 2000, with future mark up, fine for default etc., at the contractual rate from May 16, 2000, till realization.

The claimant has taken the ground for release/discharge of the property saying that the property was purchased after verification and issuance of non-encumbrance certificate. She is in the physical possession since 28-3-1998. The petitioner, by misrepresenting the fact and showing the property as belonging to the respondent No.1, has obtained ad-interim attachment order.

The contention of Mr. A. Iqbal Qadri, on behalf of the claimant/ objector, was that the property was not attached in law, as such, there was no restraint on the respondents or anybody from dealing with the property.

Justice Shabbir was of the view that the substantial compliance of rule 54 (2), by proclamation of attachment on the judgment debtor, by its pasting on the conspicuous part of the property as well as court notice board, had been adequately complied with.