2003 PLP 379 (CLD)

Zia Makhdoom for Appellant. Date of hearing: 25th June, 2002. In this 1st appeal the appellant, has assailed the order of Banking Court No.2 at Karachi whereby offer of the appellant for purchase of the demised property for a sum of Rs.15.00 million was accepted and sale certificate was ordered to be issued in favour of the appellant. The appellant had moved an application before the trial Court wherein a request was made that the sale of the demised property may be confirmed in the name of M/s. G‑One Traders (Pvt.) Limited as their nominee, as earlier requested by them in their bid. Elaborating the arguments Mr. Zia Makhdoom submitted that the shopkeepers of the demised property known as "Glamour‑One" agreed to form a Private Limited Company under the name and style of "M/s. G‑One Traders (Pvt.) Limited" with a view to purchase the demised property in the name of the said Private Limited Company. Mr. Zia. Makhdoom further submitted that after submission of the bid and acceptance thereof the said private limited company has been incorporated, and he has drawn our attention to the certificate of incorporation dated 23‑5‑2002. He has also drawn our attention to Form 29 which reveals the names of the Directors of M/s. G‑One Traders (Pvt.) Limited, one of whom is the present appellant. Consequently, an application was moved by the auction‑purchaser before the trial Court with the request that the sale certificate be issued in favour of M/s. G‑One Traders (Pvt.) Limited as nominee of the auction‑purchaser but by the impugned A order the trial Court rejected the said prayer and confirmed the sale in the individual name of the appellant. Mr. Tasawar Ali Hashmi, Advocate filed power on behalf of National Bank of Pakistan, which is taken on record. He submitted that the Bank, respondent No.1, has no objection if the sale certificate is issued in favour of M/s. G‑One Traders (Pvt.) Limited as the Bank is concerned with the recovery of the money which it had advanced and that there would be no illegality in issuing the sale certificate in favour of M/s. G‑One Traders (Pvt.) Limited, one of the Directors of which is the appellant. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for parties and perused the material on record. It is agreed by the learned counsel for petitioner and respondent No.1 that this appeal may be disposed of finally at the Katcha Peshi stage. At present the sale certificate has been ordered to be issued in favour of the appellant who had submitted the bid of Rs.15.00 million for purchase of demised property. The sale certificate is yet to be issued. The appellant alongwith 4 others has formed a Private Limited Company under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and is making a request that the bid made by him may be considered as a bid made by M/s. G‑One Traders (Pvt.) Limited and sale certificate may be ordered to be issued in their favour. We are unable to find as to what illegality or harm would be caused to any of the parties if a sale certificate is issued in favour of M/s. G‑One Traders (Pvt.) Limited. It will be pertinent to observe that respondents Nos.2 to 5, though made parties in the aforesaid appeal, in our view, are not necessary parties as after sale proclamation of the demised property and acceptance of bid of .the appellant they have ceased to have any interest in the demised property and their presence in Court is not necessary. We are of the view that the prayer made by the appellant requires consideration. Accordingly we admit this appeal to regular hearing and allow the same. The impugned order is modified to the extent that the trial Court would issue the sale certificate in favour of M/s. G‑One Traders (Pvt.) Limited. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms. H.B.T./S‑258/K Appeal allowed.