2005 PLP 1638 (CLD)

TANVIR BASHIR ANSARI, J.

This F.A.O. is directed against the order dated 6-9-2004 passed by the learned Judge Banking Court, Sargodha whereby the application made by the appellants under section 12(2), C.P.C. and Order XXI, rules 90, 97, 99 and 103, C.P.C. was dismissed.

2. Briefly the facts are that Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited (ZTBL), Shahpur Branch filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.4,15,189 against Mst. Nilofar Akram respondent No.2 on 20-7-1999. This suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 16-11-1999. The final liquidation liability was ordered by sale and auction of the mortgaged property. The judgment-debtor moved a review petition against the said decree on 10-2-2000 but this application was also dismissed on 1-6-2000. Thereafter, the decree-holder filed execution on 4-12-2001. The decretal amount was recovered by the sale of the mortgaged property. The sale Certificate was also issued in May, 2002.

3. It was on 28-7-2004 that the present. appellants (Muhammad Sharif and 7 others) filed the aforementioned application for setting aside of the judgment and decree passed by the Judge Banking Court and also sought to avail the sale of the mortgaged property on the ground that 6 Kanals and 10 Marlas of the mortgaged property was owned by the appellants having purchased the same through an oral sale from Munir Hussain Sheikh, the original owner and father of Mst. Nilofar Akram. It was also claimed that the appellants were in un interrupted possession of the suit property and had also thus, matured their title.

4. The learned Judge Banking Court found that the application moved by the appellants was without any legal or factual basis. The entries in the Revenue Record constantly showed the judgment-debtor and her predecessor-in-interest to be the owner of the mortgaged property and that there was nothing on the record to support the contention raised by the appellants. Obviously, the claim made on the basis of adverse possession was also repelled.

5. The appellants have challenged the impugned order of the Judge Banking Court, Sargodha on the same grounds which were urged before the lower forum. The learned counsel for the appellants has miserably failed to show any bona fide legal interest in the mortgaged property which could substantiate their claim. Neither at the time of creation of mortgage nor at the time of filing of the suit by respondent No.3 nor indeed at the time of execution proceedings did the appellants object to the proceedings. The learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to put forward any legal basis for the claim except that he claims to be in possession of the property which is situated on 6 Kanals and 10 Marlas of the mortgaged land.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to indicate any infirmity in the impugned order. Resultantly, there is no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./M-816/L Appeal dismissed.