2003 PLP 208 (CLD)

A money decree passed in favour of respondent Bank and against the appellants is being executed by a learned Banking Court‑IV, Lahore. In the course of the said execution the property of the judgment‑debtors was ordered to be sold. This property comprises of a factory and a house. Latter property is located in Defence Housing Authority, Lahore Cantt. Vide order, dated 27‑6‑2002 the learned executing Court fixed reserved price of the said first property at Rs.5 millions and of the said house at Rs.9 millions. The Auctioneer was directed to file a report on 2‑9‑2002. On 10‑8‑2002 the appellants filed an application complaining that Bank had earlier evaluated the said first property at Rs. 6.96 millions while the said second property was so evaluated at Rs.11.520 millions. The grievance made out was that the reserved price was rather low. This application was dismissed on 10‑8‑2002 with observations that judgment -debtors can bring customer at the time of auction proceedings.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that decree‑holder bank itself evaluated the property at much higher price and the reserved price was got fixed at lower side to cause wrongful loss to the appellants. Vehemently contends that proceedings and conduct of the Court auctioneer is not much above board and visible attempts were being made to throw away the properties at a very low price. Learned counsel for the decree‑holder bank on the other hand argues that the reserved price has been not only reasonably but fairly fixed in order to attract the customers for proposed Court sale. He in his turn relies on same later evaluation made by the said consultants which are somehow at par or commensurate with reserved price fixed by the learned executing Court. Learned counsel for the appellants objects to these reports with assertion that these were prepared later and were not filed with the executing Court when bank was called upon to do so.

3. We have given some thought to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.

4. We find that so far as the bungalow is concerned, it is the forced sale value which is fixed at Rs.9 millions while in the matter of factory it has been reported that some machinery items have either been removed or replaced with items of lesser value.

5. We, therefore, do no find any error in the impugned order of learned Executing Court while fixing the said reserved price. Needless to state that endeavours are being made by the learned executing Court in order to ensure that maximum price is fetched at sale.

6. So far as the said second contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is concerned, we have been taken through some advertisement being issued by learned Court auctioneer, we do find that there is discrepancy either in the dates fixed for auction or time fixed for sale.

7. We have already noted above that learned Executing Court shall see to it that sale is made in accordance with the legal provisions and the process of the Court is not allowed to be abused by any' one. With these observations this F.A.O. is disposed of. S.A.K./N‑228/L Order accordingly.