2005 PLP 1368 (CLC)

C.M. No.181/B of 2001 Through this petition, the objector i.e. Pergo Trading Limited has raised following two objections to the confirmation of the sale by this Court: -- (i) That one of the Court auctioneers i.e. Mr. Abdul Hameed Chohan was biased in favour of the decree-holder being decree-holder's counsel in' the present proceedings. Wherefor he facilitated the decree-holder (purchaser) to purchase the property in-question at a very low price; and (ii) That the sale/purchase price of Rs.2,56,50,000 is extremely inadequate considering the location and quantum of land and the building constructed thereupon.

2. Learned counsel for the decree-holder/purchaser has stated that the application is mala fide as the earlier objection petition filed by Messrs Pergo i.e. C.M. No.403/B of 2000 (claiming an interest in the property) was dismissed by this Court on 15-1-2001. Appeal thereagainst was also dismissed by the learned Division Bench of this Court and the matter was taken to the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, where the applicant/objector was declined the equity of injunction. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the decree-holder/purchaser that Messrs Pergo has no interest and locus standi in the matter to raise objection as to the sale and adequacy/inadequacy of the price. It is also denied that Mr. Abdul Hameed Chohan, Advocate was ever Advocate in the present proceedings for the decree-holder, wherefor he mis-conducted the proceedings.

3. I have considered the arguments and the record. It is not denied that the earlier objection petition filed by Messrs Pergo was dismissed by this Court and so was appeal there-against. It is also not denied by the learned counsel for the applicant/objector that the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan denied to grant a stay order against confirmation of the sale. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the subject-matter of the earlier objection petition was different from the present petition.

4. Be that as it may, examination of record does not prove that Mr. Abdul Hameed Chohan, Advocate was decree-holder's counsel in the present matter although on C.M. No.69 of 2000, Mr. Chohan's name has been printed under the prayer, but the same has not been signed by Mr. Chohan. Furthermore, it has not been shown by the learned counsel for the objector/applicant that any power of attorney was given to Mr. Abdul Hameed Chohan, Advocate by the decree-holder and no evidence of misconduct of proceedings or bias of the said Court auctioneer in favour of the decree-holder has been produced. The allegation thereto is general, vague and unsubstantiated. Mr. Abdul Hameed Chohan, Advocate was not the sole Court auctioneer. The sale was jointly conducted by a learned Senior Advocate i.e. Mr. Abdul Samad Hashmi as a joint Court auctioneer along with Mr. Abdul Hameed Chohan. There is no allegation of misconduct, bias or prejudice against Mr. Abdul Sammad Hashmi, Advocate.

5. In view thereof, I do not find any substance in objection of bias or misconduct of proceedings in the matter. The thrust of the learned counsel for the applicant as to inadequacy of the sale price was on the basis of misconduct of the proceedings and alleged bias of Mr. Abdul Hameed Chohan, Advocate in favour of the decree-holder. This contention of misconduct and bias has already been found without substance. However, in distress, mere inadequacy of sale price is not a ground for setting aside a sale held in execution proceedings. Furthermore, neither the objector has made any offer of purchase at a higher price nor has he shown his locus standi to object to the confirmation of sale by this Court. In view thereof, this C.M. is rejected. SALE CONFIRMATION

6. Learned counsel for the decree-holder i.e. purchaser of the property has requested for approval/confirmation of the sale as a consequence of the rejection of the abovesaid objection petition. It is also stated that there is no other application pending qua the objection to confirmation of sale or otherwise. As a result thereof, request of the learned counsel for the decree-holder/purchaser for confirmation of the sale and delivery of possession of the mortgaged property is accepted. The sale is made absolute and judgment-debtor or any person in possession thereof is directed to hand over, deliver and put the purchaser or its representatives (nominated for the purpose) in possession of the said property.

7. In case of any resistance or obstruction by any person in the way of obtaining possession of the said property by the purchaser, necessary police assistance is also allowed.

8. Warrants of possession are ordered to be issued and a bailiff of this Court is deputed to execute the same and also to make an inventory of anything or items lying in the said property. To come up for report thereto and for arguments on C.M. No.344/B of 2001 on 12-12-2001. S.A.K./T-81/L Order accordingly. ***