1982 PLP 1051 (CLC)

M. Habibur Rehman Afridi for Plaintiff: Nooruddin Ramzan for Defendant No.

2. Azhar All Siddiqui for the Intervenors. This is an application under section 151, C. P. C. on behalf of the purchaser Muhammad Azim Haji praying that he may be permitted to withdraw the amount deposited in Court towards the auction price and the auction may be set aside. The property was auctioned on 14‑2‑1981: Prior to that a notice of auction was issued by the Nazir stating that a launch known as Al‑Ahmedi berthed at Karachi Fish Harbour was to be auctioned on "as is where is" basis. The auction purchaser was the successful bidder having paid Rs. 5,50,000 which was deposited in terms of auction sale. One of the conditions of the auction was that the sale shall be subject to confirmation of the Court. Accordingly the Nazir made a reference to the Court for confirmation of the sale. The plaintiffs raised certain objections to the auction and the hearing was adjourned from time to time. On 22-3‑1981 the plaintiffs' counsel stated that he had not received a copy of the Nazir's reference and therefore the matter was adjourned by consent of the parties. Again on 29‑3‑1981 the defendant No. 1 also filed objections to the Nazir's reference arid it was ordered that the Nazir may obtain other offers within 10 days from that date and the hearing, was fixed for 12‑5‑

81. This order was made in the interest of justice to meet the objections that the sale price is at a lower level. However the matter was again taken up on 18‑10‑1981, 27‑10‑1981 and ‑10‑11‑1981 and on each date it was adjourned. On 17‑11‑1981 the matter was again taken up in the presence of all the parties when the present application which twos filed on 20‑10‑1981 was also taken up for consideration. Again it was adjourned to' 29‑11‑1981 when it was ordered that the auction‑purchaser should file affidavit in respect of certain facts mentioned by him is his application. Such affidavit has been filed by the auction‑purchaser. The main ground for setting aside the auction is that due to delay in confirmation the property has completely changed its status inasmuch as it is not a launch but it has become a scrap. The auction notice as stated earlier has 'mentioned that the launch was to be auctioned on "as is where is basis". No further particulars or condition of the launch were mentioned in the auction notice. The applicant has not stated in his application and affidavit the condition of the launch at the time of purchase and in what manner, it has deteriorated due to the passage of time. The affidavit has not given particulars on the basis of which it is alleged that the launch has now become a scrap. Mr. Azhar Ali Siddiqui, the learned counsel has contended that certain parts of the launch have been pilferred and with the passage of time as the launch was not being maintained properly it has deteriorated without any default or mistake of the applicant. The Nazir Who is present here has stated that the launch is berthed at the same place where it was at the time of auction and that a Chowkidar was appointed to look after the launch during this period. It therefore seems that the allegations made by the applicant that certain parts have been pilferred and taken away due to which it has deteriorated does not seem to be correct. No specific allegation giving full details of the damage caused to the launch during this period has been mentioned. In the absence of any material on record to establish that the launch has severely deteriorated the same cannot be accepted. It is an admitted. position that the property in dispute .is a movable property. Under Order XXI, rule 77, C. P. C. when a movable property is sold by a public auction, on payment of purchase money the sale becomes absolute. In the circumstances the sale was complete and became absolute on payment of the entire ,sale consideration made within 15 days of the auction. The question of confirmation by the Court was merely formality. In the circumstances the objections raised by the applicant are not tenable and the auction sale made on 14‑2‑1480.is hereby confirmed. The plaintiff and defendants have no objection to the payment of Rs. 3,925 towards the fee of Nazir and Chowkidari charges of Rs. 1,200 up to December, 1981. The said amounts should accordingly be paid. M. Y. M. Application dismissed.