2014 PLP 335 (CLD)
Syed KHADIM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus JUDGE BANKING COURT NO.III, LAHORE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2014 PLP 335 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Syed KHADIM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus JUDGE BANKING COURT NO.III, LAHORE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 335 (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 2014 PLP 335 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 335 (CLD) (Syed KHADIM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus JUDGE BANKING COURT NO.III, LAHORE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghulam Hussain Chaudhry for Petitioner.
- Usman Sahi for Respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 19(3)
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Execution of decree passed by Banking Court
Sale of mortgaged property by way of public auction
Reserve price
Grievance of judgment-debtor/petitioner was that reserve price of property intended to be auctioned was too low and had been wrongly fixed by the Executing Court by relying on a valuation report and that reserve price of property should have been fixed at the market rate
Reserve price was always tentative in nature and was the minimum price from where the bid started
Low reserve price attracted more bidders to participate for a fair competition
No prejudice was likely to be caused to the judgment-debtor because his interest would be in the final bid, i.e. offer by a bidder, which would be the price at which the property would be sold
Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL WAHEED KHAN, J.
A suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,21,83,563,32 filed by respondent No.2 was decreed against the petitioner/defendant from the Banking Court No. II, Lahore vide judgment and decree dated 15-1-2008. During execution proceedings, the decree holder filed an application for correction of a khasra number of the mortgaged property and the judgment debtor, by filing objection petition raised an objection that reserve price of the property intended to be auctioned, is too low and has wrongly been fixed by the Executing Court. The objection was turned down by the Judge Banking Court-II, Lahore vide the impugned order dated 22-2-2011, hence this petition.
2. While reiterating the contents of this petition, the counsel for the petitioner submits that too low reserve price has been fixed on the basis of valuation Report dated 25-4-2005, at the forced sale value, which is against the principle of natural justice, that reserved price should have been fixed at the market rate. According to him, the valuation report should have been got prepared from an approved Valuators which has not been done in the instant case, therefore, the impugned order be set aside.
3. Conversely, on the strength of case reported as Messrs Tri-Star Polyester Limited and another v. Citi Bank (2001 SCMR 410) the counsel for the respondents submits that in banking matters right of filing an appeal against the interlocutory order has not been provided, therefore, the instant petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
4. Arguments heard and record perused. The petitioner has the grievance that the reserve price of the property intended to be auctioned is too low. The reserve price is always tentative in nature and is the minimum price from where the bid starts. A low reserved price attracts more bidders to participate for a fair competition. Even otherwise, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the petitioner because his interest would be in the final bid, offer by a bidder, the price, at which, the property would be sold. There is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Resultantly, this petition fails and is dismissed. MWA/K-6/L Petition dismissed.