- (1.) HEARD the counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.
(2.) LEARNED senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised two contentions: - ( i ) The review is maintainable in view of the fact that Section 3 (2) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 would provide that the provision of the Order XXVII of the first Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply to proceedings for an order of attachment under the Ordinance as they apply to suits by the Government and. therefore, this cannot be considered to be criminal proceeding and on the other hand, this being a civil proceeding, review maintainable, as there is no bar. (ii) Even though the District Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner, he did not carefully consider the fact that the property in dispute was not acquired under the scorn and though application was filed before this Court pending appeal to accept the additional documents to prove his defence, the same has not been considered by this Court and, therefore, the ground for review is maintainable. In our view, both the grounds are not valid for the following reasons: -
(3.) FIRSTLY , of course it is true that under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, the provision of the Order XXVII of the first Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply to proceedings for an order of attachment under the Ordinance as they apply to suits by the Government but this provision will not be taken to mean that the entire proceeding is civil proceeding and Code of Criminal Procedure would not be applied. As a matter of fact the name of the Ordinance itself is "Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944".;