NOTE FOR 20-01-2011 (TEMPORARY INJUNCTION)

SUIT NO. 1038/2009

CHURCH MISSIONARY TRUST ASSOCIATION
Versus
DIOCESE OF KARACHI & OTHERS
RELIEFR SOUGHT FOR: The Plaintiff in the above suit has sought the
following relief in respect of the suit properties (described on page
369):
to
restrain
the
defendants,
their
agents/heirs/representatives/successors/attorneys to transfer, sell, gift
or create any kind of third party intervention in the suit properties,
pendent lite.( All the properties are situate in Karachi. The Court
therefore has jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit in respect of
dispute relating to ownership and possession of the suit properties.)
PRELIMINARY:
The Defendant no. 1 and 2 claim that the suit property stands in the
name of the Church Missionary Trust Association Limited London
entered into papers of CDGK as church missionary trust association.
Defendant no. 1 and 2 claim proprietary entitlement to the suit
property by virtue of the documents annexed as A to B/3 of the Written
Statement, which form the chain of the title of the Defendant No. 1 and
2. However, the Plaintiff claims itself to be the same person as entered
in the CDGK papers as owner (perpetual lessee) of the suit properties
i.e. church missionary trust association (Annex- F to P of the Plaint
are admitted documents by both parties).
However, the Plaintiff does not claim to be an entity in its own right but
claims to be the successor of the CMTA, India on the basis of record
annexed with the Plaint as Annex-A to D, which record on the face of it
is bogus. First of all, the existence of the Plaintiff hangs on a tale
(Annex-D) which on the face of it is an invalid document. It purports to
be a decision taken by CMTA India to change the name and character
of CMTA India, but the decision is taken only by those members that
were at the time of decision living in the Pakistan. It does not appear
who were the persons who took the historic decision and whether

they were authorized by the Constitution and Rules of the CMTA, India
to take the decision. In the bogus Memorandum and Articles of
Association (Annex-A to the Plaint), three official bodies have been
named: i. Executive Committee, ii. Board of Directors, and iii. Standing
Committee. The historic decision purported to be taken on 12-7-1948
was taken by the lay members, and that only present in Pakistan, and
not by any governing body; therefore bogus. All acts pursuant thereto,
also bogus. The Plaintiff therefore is a bogus entity and not the
successor of CMTA, India.
Further, the so-called attorney (multi-vision marketing) can only be
appointed pursuant to orders of an authorized governing body which
derives its legitimacy from validly registered articles and memorandum
of association. The SPOA on behalf of the Plaintiff and in favor of the
multi vision marketing is executed by a purported General Secretary of
CMTA on 10-05-2008. Neither a list of office-bearers pursuant to
section 4 of Societies Registration Act has been produced to show that
Mst. Ruby Barkat was the official General Secretary of the CMTA nor in
the M & A of A it is shown that General Secretary has power to appoint
attorneys. The appointed attorney (multi-vision) has not been
empowered to institute suits, rather the only power is to file suits.
The suit therefore is not competently instituted and not maintainable.
This is a ground to refuse temporary injunction. (2009 CLC 973 & 2002
CLD 77).
1. PRIMA FACIE CASE:
In the CDGK papers (Annex-F to O), the suit property is shown to
be on perpetual lease. Plaintiff has not produced the lease deed
nor does it tell how it went out of possession of the suit property
which the Plaintiff admits to be under Defendant no. 1 and 2s
effective possession. Prayer is made that Defendants be directed
to hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the
Plaintiff. Therefore, there is no prima facie case. In view of this, lis
pendens (section 52 TOPA) is enough protection to the Plaintiff.
(PLD 2003 K 222).
2. BBALANCE OF CONVENIENCE:
In favor of defendants as they are in admitted possession and
managing properties since decades.

3. IRREPARABLE LOSS:
Not shown. Possession admittedly with Defendants. Doctrine of lis
pendens enough protection.