2019 PLP 696 (CLD)
ZIA SHAHID WASEER — Appellant Versus BANK AL-HABIB and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2019 PLP 696 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ZIA SHAHID WASEER — Appellant Versus BANK AL-HABIB and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 696 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP 696 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP 696 (CLD) (ZIA SHAHID WASEER — Appellant Versus BANK AL-HABIB and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ali Raza Kabeer for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 22 & 27
Sale certificate
Setting aside of auction proceedings by Banking Court
Finality of order of Banking Court
Scope
Appellant was aggrieved of order of Banking Court whereby auction in favour of appellant was set aside
Banking Court having confirmed the sale in favour of appellant could not unilaterally set aside the auction proceedings particularly when no objection from any quarter was raised
Banking Court was precluded to set aside the auction proceedings by virtue of S. 27 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
Appeal was allowed and Banking Court was directed to issue sale certificate in favour of appellant.
Judgment & Decree
This regular first appeal is filed under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (the Ordinance) for calling in question order dated 25.02.2015 passed by the banking court whereby the auction in favour of the appellant was set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that auction of the mortgaged properties was ordered by the banking court, which auction was held on 07.01.2015. The appellant participated in the auction by making a bid for Rs.10,450,000/- which was more than the reserve price fixed by the banking court. The banking court in view of the fact that the judgment debtor did not file any objections on the auction proceedings within the stipulated period passed order dated 09.02.2015 confirming the sale in favour of the appellant. The banking court, however, on 25.02.2015 set aside the auction proceedings held on 07.01.2015 and ordered for return of the amount to the appellant.
3. Learned counsel submits that the banking court after confirming the sale in favour of the appellant on 09.02.2015 had no jurisdiction to set aside the auction proceedings. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/decree holder bank supports the stance of the appellant.
4. Arguments heard, record perused.
5. Record shows that the banking court in the proceedings conducted in terms of Order XXI, Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) fixed the reserve price of the mortgaged property at Rs.10,200,000/- as the judgment debtor despite notice failed to enter appearance before it. It is an admitted fact that the appellant made a bid for Rs.10,450,000/- which was more than the reserve price. It is an equally admitted fact that the banking court on 09.02.2015 confirmed the sale in favour of the appellant. The banking court, therefore, could not have unilaterally set aside the auction proceedings particularly when no objection from any quarter was raised before it. Be that as it may, the banking court could not have passed the impugned order on 25.02.2015 as it was precluded to do so by virtue of the provisions contained in section 27 of the Ordinance.
6. In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside order dated 25.02.2015. The banking court is directed to issue the necessary sale certificate in favour of the appellant. SA/Z-6/L Appeal allowed.