2013 PLP 1034 (SCMR)
QAISER ABBAS — Petitioner Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 1034 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar and Iqbal Hameedur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | QAISER ABBAS — Petitioner Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 1034 (SCMR)?
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 2013 PLP 1034 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar and Iqbal Hameedur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 1034 (SCMR) (QAISER ABBAS — Petitioner Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi Misbah-ul-Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- M. Irfan Waiyn, Advocate Supreme Court and Mrs. Tasneem Amin, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 30th April, 2013.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 7-2-2013 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan passed in F.A.O. No.13 of 2011.)
S. 19
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXI, Rr. 66, 67(2) & 90
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Non-compliance of proclamation of sale
Press publication
Judgment debtor assailed auction proceedings on the pleas that Court-Auctioneer without any authority, in the advertisement of auction, had fixed date different from the one fixed by court and illegally auctioned property on such date; that description of property was wrongly and incorrectly mentioned in the advertisement; that proper advertisement required under law was not made as property was situated in city "M", whereas advertisement/publication was made in inconspicuous newspapers published from cities "L" and "V"
All such factors were vital, which vitiated auction but such aspects had not been taken into account by the courts below
Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider the contentions of judgment-debtor
Petition was allowed.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states, that the learned executing court vide order dated 17-2-2010 had specifically directed that the auction of the property in question shall take place on 20-4-2010, but the court auctioneer without any authority, in the advertisement of auction had fixed the date as 29-4-2010 and illegally auctioned the property on such date; that the description of the property has been wrongly and incorrectly mentioned in the advertisement; that the proper advertisement required under the law had not been made; the property was situated in Multan city, whereas advertisement/publication of the notice has been made in inconspicuous newspaper, titled Karnama, which is published from Lodhran and Vehari inter alia, all these factors are vital, which vitiate the auction, but these aspects have not been taken into account by the courts below. Leave is granted to consider the above. In the meantime, pursuant to the auction, the possession shall not been taken from the petitioner and given to the auction purchaser. MH/Q-2/SC Leave granted.