2023 PLP 1448 (CLD)
Messrs MULTAN BRAIN CENTER through Partner and 3 others — Appellants Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Branch Manager — Respondent
| Citation | 2023 PLP 1448 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Messrs MULTAN BRAIN CENTER through Partner and 3 others — Appellants Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Branch Manager — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2023 PLP 1448 (CLD)?
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 2023 PLP 1448 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2023 PLP 1448 (CLD) (Messrs MULTAN BRAIN CENTER through Partner and 3 others — Appellants Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Branch Manager — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Khurram Qureshi Hashmi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 19, 15 & 22
Execution of decree of Banking Court
Fair reserve price, determination of
Scope
Banking Court fixed new reserve price of mortgaged property on an application moved by decree-holder/Bank because earlier auction proceedings could not succeed as no bidder came forward
Application raising objection on determination of new reserve price moved by Judgment-debtors/appellants was dismissed by the Banking Court
Record revealed that earlier reserve was fixed pursuant to the evaluation having been submitted by the parties
Banking Court passed order on application for fresh determination of reserve price moved by the decree-holder/Bank, however, on that day/date no one was present on behalf of judgment-debtors/appellants
Banking Court on the very first date, accepted the said application (moved by decree-holder/Bank) in summary manner without issuing any notice or calling reply from the judgment-debtors/appellants
New reserve price determined by the Banking Court was quite low as compared to the earlier fixed reserve price
Determination of fair reserve price was always in interest of both sides because the same ensured the recovery for decree-holder and at the same time it guaranteed that judgment-debtor might not be deprived from his lawful entitlement
High Court set-aside new reserve price fixing order passed by the Banking Court while accepting application moved by the appellants, and the application under S. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 moved by the decree-holder (Bank/respondent )for fresh determination of reserve price, would be deemed pending before the Banking Court
Execution First Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Admittedly there is a decree for recovery against appellants for Rs.4,89,42,669/- passed on 29.11.2017, pursuant to a suit filed by National Bank of Pakistan/respondent and that has attained finality.
2. Vide an order dated 02.02.2019 passed by learned Judge, Banking Court-II, Multan, the reserve price of mortgaged property was fixed as Rs.43,71,91,125/- and subsequent thereto the schedule for auction was also issued.
3. The auction proceedings could not succeed as no bidder came forward, hence respondent/decree holder filed an application under section 151, C.P.C. before learned court with a request for fresh determination of reserve price. Vide an order dated 30.11.2019, the said application was accepted and Messrs Harvester Services (Pvt.) Ltd. was appointed to reassess the value of mortgaged property. This time reserve price was fixed as Rs.17,13,68,925/- vide an order dated 16.11.2020.
4. Later on, appellants moved an application raising objection on determination of new reserve price and the same was dismissed vide an order dated 02.02.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Banking Court-I, Multan and the same has been impugned through the instant appeal.
5. HEARD.
6. The earlier reserve price of Rs.43,71,91,125/- was pursuant to evaluation. submitted by the parties. We have gone through the order dated 30.11.2019 which shows that on that day no one was present on behalf of appellants and on the very first date, without issuing any notice or calling for reply from the appellants, the application was accepted in a summary manner and new reserve price which was quite low as compared to the earlier fixed, was determined by learned court.
7. The determination of fair reserve price is always in interest of both sides. If it ensures the recovery for the decree holder, at the same time it guarantees that the judgment debtor may be not deprived from his lawful entitlement.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned above, we allow this appeal by setting aside impugned order dated 02.02.2022. Application filed by appellants is accepted and the result is that the order dated 30.11.2019 shall also lose its life and the application under section 151, C.P.C. filed by respondent shall be deemed to be pending. The learned trial court after hearing both the sides shall proceed again for the purpose of determination of reserve price. MQ/M-97/L Appeal allowed.