Law:

Section:

Registration Act (XVI of 1908)--- ---S.60---Registered document---Evidentiary value---Such document would operate from date of its execution---Such document would be presumed and/or deemed to be genuine, binding and enforceable under law and its sanctity could not be doubted or questioned, unless same was either cancelled through another registered document or declared as void through court. Petitioners and their counsel are called absent. ORDER C.M.A. No.14 of 2012: AZIZ-UR-REHMAN, J.---Through the listed application, under Order XXXIX Rule 4 r/w section 94(e) and section 161, C.P.C., (C.M.A. N.14 of 2012) respondent No.2 seeks discharge, vary or set aside of the ad interim ex parte order dated 18-2-2011 passed by this Court on C.M.A. No.50 of 2011. The application is duly supported by an affidavit of respondent No.2. 2. Precisely the facts leading to the filing of the above application are:-- 3. The petitioner filed a winding-up petitions, under sections 290, 291, 292, 305, 309 and 314 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. Along with the petition an injunction application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 r/w section 94 and section 151, C.P.C. besides other applications, was also filed with a prayer that respondents be restrained from creating any third party interest and/or selling off or disposing off the assets of the company as enunciated in Annexure A/1 of the winding-up petition. Prayer for ad interim relief was also sought. 4. On 18-2-2011, C.M.A. No.50 of 2011 was also listed at Serial No.3, when the following order was passed:-- "(1) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, (2) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, (3) Notice was above. Till then, no third party interest shall be created over the assets of the company, as enunciated in annexure A-1 of the petition. 4 & 5. ...." 5. Upon service, the respondent No.2, filed a detailed Counter-Affidavit in response to C.M.A. No.50 of 11, wherein the assertions with regard to ownership of three immovable properties by respondent No.1, as shown/stated in annexure "A-1" (page 55 of the court file) was forcefully denied. The petitioners however, in their own wisdom avoided and/or ignored to file any affidavit-in-rejoinder in answer to the Counter-Affidavit…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492