2004 PLP 1337 (YLR)

Auction proceedings through a mandate of the Court have a Sanctity and sense of security attached to those under its commitment to honour fair and lawful auctions. Provisions of Order XXI, rule 90, C.P.C. have a logic behind those, because if honest auction proceedings are not kept intact and are annulled on applications of unconcerned persons like the petitioner, it will damage the entire set up and public at large will not repose confidence in such like proceedings. Application of petitioner appears to be ill-motivated having been filed on behalf of judgment-debtors and for their benefits, because there was another application by a descendant of judgment debtor, which was also disposed of simultaneously with application of petitioner. In order to give strength to sales under the cover of judicial process, such like applications have to be discouraged. Sale through auction under the orders of the Court is a commitment by the Court in favour of the highest bidder, which can in no manner be rescinded or annulled on frivolous applications. High Court dismissed Constitutional petition filed by prospective bidder against order of trial Court, whereby his application under section 151, C.P.C., being in the nature and gist an objection petition under Order XXI, Rule 90, C.P.C. was dismissed. Mst. Noor Jehan Begum v. Dr. Abdus Samad and others 1987 SCMR 1577 and Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Limited v. Shahdin Limited 2001 CLC 1267 rel. Messrs Ch. Ehsan-ul Haq Virk and Khawar Ikram Bhatti for Petitioner. This Constitutional petition seeks judgment/order dated 23-1-2004 passed by respondent No. 1 (Banking Court No. II, Lahore) whereby an application under section 151, C.P.C. in the form of objections, filed by the petitioner was dismissed, to be declared as illegal, void and of no legal consequences.

2. Precisely, relevant facts are that the petitioner claimed to have participated in the auction proceedings conducted under the orders of respondent No. 1, in execution of a decree passed by it. The auction was held on 8-11-2003. The petitioner asserted in his petition that he was present but was not permitted to participate in the auction proceedings which were not conducted in a fair and lawful manner. He has shown his willingness to purchase mortgaged property for a sum of Rs.30 millions which is much above the price on which hammer of the auctioneer fell.

3. Heard. Record perused. Though petition filed before respondent No.1 was under section 151, C.P.C. but it was in the nature and gist, an objection petition under Order XXI, rule 90, C.P.C., under this provision, an application could have been filed by the decree-holder, by the person entitled to any share in the property or by an person whose interest in the property is affected by the sale and any of those, had asserted some material irregularity or fraud in the conduct of the auction. The petitioner is undeniably, none of those persons and being a simple prospective bidder, objected to the auction. The petitioner on the one hand cannot object to auction proceedings under Order XXI, rule 90, C.P.C. and on the other hand being only a prospective bidder, if at all, cannot maintain Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, in view of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Noor Jehan Begum v. Dr. Abdus Samad and others 1987 SCMR 1577.

4. Auction proceedings through a mandate of the Court, have a sanctity and sense of security attached to those, under its commitment to honour fair and lawful auctions. Provisions of Order XXI, rule 90, C.P.C. have a logic behind those because if honest auction proceedings are not kept intact and are annulled on applications of unconcerned persons, like the one in hand, it will damage the entire set up and public at large will not repose confidence in such like proceedings, though application by the petitioner appears to be ill-motive, having been filed on behalf of the judgment debtors and for their benefits because there was another application by one Mst. Irshad Bibi, a claimed descendant of the one of the judgment-debtor which was also disposed of, simultaneously with the application of the petitioner, through the impugned order yet in order to give strength to the sales under the cover of judicial process, such like applications have to be discouraged. Sale through auction under the orders of the Court, is a commitment by the Court, in favour of the highest bidder which can in no manner be rescinded or annulled on frivolous applications. My this view gets support from a judgment of this Court, given in the case of Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Limited v. Shahdin Limited 2001 CLC 1267.

5. For what has been discussed above, I am of the considered view that order passed by respondent No.1 within his competence has neither been shown to have been passed arbitrarily or fanciful nor it suffers from any illegality hence, the same cannot be declared as prayed. This writ petition has no merit in it and is consequently dismissed in limine. S.A.K./A-47/L Petition dismissed.