2011 PLP 484 (CLD)

GULZAR AHMED, J.

At the outset Mr. Syed Mazharul Haq has filed a statement along with a copy of agreement dated 12-10-2006 executed between the plaintiff and defendants whereby some compromise appears to have been made between them after passing of the decree. Mr. Nadeem Ahmed counsel for the plaintiff admits that such an agreement is made between the parties. The statement along with the copy of the agreement is taken on record. So far the application is concerned which is under section 152, C.P.C., the plaintiff has raised a grievance that the decree which has followed the judgment is not in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1) of section 19 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the decree provides for selling of the property by the Court and depositing its proceeds also in Court. Learned counsel states that subsection (3) of section 19 of the above Ordinance empowers the plaintiff to sell the mortgaged property by public auction or by inviting sealed tenders and appropriate the sale proceeds towards total or partial satisfaction of the .decree and that there is no need for the plaintiff to either have the property sold through the Court or have the sale proceeds deposited in court. Mr. Syed Mazharul Haq learned counsel appearing for the defendant does not oppose this legal position but states that so far the Court is concerned, it has passed the mortgaged decree and the decree drawn by it is in consonance with the form provided in appendix D' to the CP.C. He has further stated that in view of the agreement made between the parties, copy of which has been filed with the statement today, the application has become redundant and no orders on it is required. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and have also examined the relevant provisions of law. So far as the form of decree that has been drawn upon the judgment is concerned. I find that the same is in accordance with Form-10 appendix 'D' to the C.P.C. and apparently there is no mistake in making of the decree. As regards the provision of subsection (3) of section 19 of the Ordinance is concerned, the same appears to empower the plaintiff bank to sell the mortgaged properties by public auction or by inviting sealed tenders and to appropriate the proceeds towards the total and partial satisfaction of the decree with or without intervention of the Banking Court. Though the decree provides for selling of the mortgaged properties by the Court and depositing of its sale proceeds in Court despite that fact in view of the provision of subsection (3) of section 19 Bank can exercise its right and apparently it does not need to obtain any order of the Court or amendment in the decree in this regard. With this observation the application stands disposed of. M.H./K-4/K??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Order accordingly.