Karachi: February 5, 2007. The Division Bench of the Sindh High Court comprising Mr. Justice Mushir Alam and Mr. Justice Afzal Soomro here on Friday, 2nd February 2007 granted liberty to Bishop Ijaz Inayat Masih to pursue the remedy, which he has already invoked. The order was passed in H.C.A. No. 61 of 2002 preferred by Bishop Ijaz Inayat Masih against the order dated 13.02.2002 passed by the single Judge of Sindh High Court in Civil Suit No. 1454 of 1997 regarding the election and appointment of Bishop of Karachi Diocese, Church of Pakistan. The Honorable Bench observed that through the instant appeal the Appellant had impugned the order dated 13.02.2002 and further that on the recommendation of His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury fact finding committee made certain proposal/recommendation, which was made part of the impugned judgment and it appears that pursuant to the impugned judgment elections for the office of the Bishop of Karachi were held. The Appellant present in the court along with his Learned Counsel stated that the Suit No. 379 of 2002 has been filed challenging the elections of the Bishop of Karachi, held under the directions of the Court, while the impugned judgment in this case, though by consent, was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and the Appellant has gathered material information and facts that may ultimately effect merits of the impugned judgment. It was further stated by the Appellant that such fraud and misrepresentation were not in the knowledge of the Appellant at the time of institution of the instant appeal, therefore, no grounds were raised therein and the same judgment has been assailed under Section 12 (2) CPC, in Judicial Miscellaneous No. 37 of 2006. Mr. Farough Naseem Learned Counsel for the Respondents (Sadiq Daniel and others) stated that he has received notices of the referred J. M. No. 37 of 2006 and he will defend the proceedings, further he denied the allegations made against the Respondents. Mr. Raja Qureshi Learned Counsel for the Appellant (Bishop Ijaz Inayat Masih) contended that some orders protecting the property of the Church may be passed. In this regard it was observed that such restraining orders could effectively be obtained in the Suit No. 379 of 2002 and J. M. No. 37 of 2006, already pending adjudication. The Honorable Bench observed that whatever the case may be, such facts and allegations, raised either in Suit No. 379 of 2002 or J. M. No. 37 of 2006 could not be debated in present proceedings as any comment on the merit or demerit of the same is bound to prejudice case of either party, therefore, the Court exercise restraint in expressing its opinion on the merit or demerit of J. M. No. 37 of 2006 or the Suit referred above. In view of the above Appellant is at liberty to pursue the remedy, which he has already invoked.