2004 PLP 493 (CLD)

‑‑‑‑Ss.l8(6) & 21‑‑‑Execution of decree‑‑‑Sale of mortgaged property‑‑‑Appellant filed‑ objection petition claiming to be shareholder in mortgaged property‑‑‑Banking Court while issuing notice to respondent in objection petition imposed condition of deposit of decretal amount‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑According to S.18(6) of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, objection petition ought to be investigated and decided within 30 days and in case at the end of inquiry/trial, same was found to be mala fide, a penalty could be imposed up to 20% of sale price of property for delay caused in execution of decree‑‑‑High Court allowed appeal and set aside impugned order with observations that auction/sale of property other than alleged share of appellant would proceed further in accordance with law. Ch. Muhammad Amin Javed for Appellant. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th February, 2003. MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑‑‑In the course of execution of a decree passed in favour of the respondent No.1‑Bank and against the remaining respondents/ judgment‑debtor, the appellant filed an objection petition stating that he is a share‑holder in the property that was mortgaged and later ordered to be sold. The learned trial Court took up the application on 6‑6‑2000 and proceeded to issue a notice to the respondents. However, a condition was imposed that this will be subject to deposit of the decretal amount.

2. Learned counsel contends that the said condition could not have been imposed in view of the clear provisions of section 18 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997. No one has turned up for the respondent No.1‑Bank who is represented by a learned counsel whose name stands duly listed in the cause list for today but no one has turned up despite several calls.

3. We have given some thought to the said contention of the learned counsel and find that the same is fully borne out from the provision of said section

18. A reading o. section 18(6) would show that the matter of investigation of claims and objections is to be governed by the said subsection (6) of section 18 of the said Act notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Now in terms of the said provision of law, the objections aught to be investigated and decided within 30 days and in case at the end of the inquiry /trial the objection is found to be mala fide, a penalty can be imposed upto 20% of the sale price of the property for the delay caused in the execution of the decree.

4. Having thus examined the said legal question arising in this case, we do agree with the learned counsel that the impugned order cannot be sustained. This E.F.A. is accordingly allowed and the impugned order imposing a condition of deposit of decretal amount for issuance of a notice in the said objection petition is set aside. A copy or this order be immediately remitted to the learned Banking Court who shall immediately proceed further in the matter in accordance with section 18(6) of the said Act No.XV of 1997. It is clarified here that the auction/sale of the property other than the alleged share of the appellant claimed by him shall proceed further in accordance with law. No orders as to costs. S.A.K./M‑1737/L Appeal allowed.