2012 PLP 1973 (CLD)

Through this appeal the appellant has assailed order dated 11-1-2008 passed by Judge Banking Court No.IV, Lahore.

2. The appellant in execution of decree against respondents Nos.1 to 5 invited bids for the sale of property of judgment debtors under section 19 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 without intervention of court. Respondent No.6 submitted her bid and was declared successful bidder. Respondent No. 6 deposited 25% amount of her bid in terms of proclamation of sale. The auction was not confirmed and respondent No.6 then filed an application for withdrawal of her amount. Learned Banking Court vide impugned order dated 11-1-2008 allowed the petitioner to withdraw her amount.

3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that impugned order is without lawful authority, an earlier application of respondent No.6 for withdrawal of bid money was pending, the second application on same subject was not maintainable. Learned Banking Court without issuing any notice to appellant accepted respondent's application for withdrawal of her bid. Learned counsel for appellant submits that impugned order is bad in law as the same has been passed in appellant's absence.

4. Learned counsel for respondents/auction purchaser submits that appellant Bank has not informed the bidder that private sale of judgment debtor's property is subject to confirmation by the Court. He further submits that terms of auction also did not provide that sale will be subject to the orders of learned Banking Court. Respondent No.6 thus participated in the bid on the appellant's representation that it is the Bank only who will confirm the sale, the appellant after declaring respondent No.6 highest bidder received 25% of the bid money and then informed that sale will be subject to confirmation by the Court. The said term was unacceptable to respondent No.6 and as such she rightly withdrew her amount.

5. Heard. Record perused.

6. It is an admitted fact between the parties that appellant Bank invited bids through proclamation published on 1-7-2007 for the sale of property detailed in proclamation. It is interesting to note that in the entire advertisement it is nowhere mentioned that sale will be subject to final order by the Banking Court. It is also an admitted fact that the Court was not involved for auctioning the property, the term of auction was settled by the appellant itself and as such respondent No.6 was justified to believe that it is the appellant Bank who will confirm the sale.

7. There is an other order available on the court file which shows that learned Banking Court on the objection petition of judgment debtor passed the following order on 1-8-2007:-- "That the auction proceedings to be held on 2-8-2007 to continue but not to be confirmed and fixed the matter for today."

8. Learned counsel for appellant is unable to show any document or communication which confirms that appellant informed the perspective buyers/bidders about the order passed by the learned Banking Court.

9. When appellant submitted auction proceedings to Court the above said facts came into the knowledge of respondent No.6. As it was not informed to bidder/ respondent No.6 that confirmation will be subject to order of Court, respondent No.6 was justified to withdraw her bid. In these circumstances, learned trial Court has not committed any illegality while allowing respondent No.6's application for withdrawal of her bid.

10. In view of above this appeal has no merit and is dismissed accordingly. KMZ/I-20/L Appeal dismissed.