2003 PLP 288 (CLD)

Abdul Majid, the appellant/judgment‑debtor, through the filing of the present appeal has called in question order, dated 16‑5‑2001, whereby the learned Banking Court dismissed appellant's objection petition.

2. Facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs.35,31,641 alongwith the liquidated damages, against the appellant and other respondents, which was decreed by the learned Banking Court vide judgment and decree, dated 12‑4‑1997 and consequent to that the respondent Bank initiated the execution proceedings, during which Property No.XXXVII‑II‑S‑6 measuring 4‑1/2 Marlas situated in Rasul Nagar, Gulberg‑III, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as disputed property) was attached. The petitioner filed an objection petition under Order XXI, rules 58, 59 and 60, C.P.C. before the learned Banking Court praying for the de‑attachment and release of the disputed property. This application was of course, opposed by the respondent‑Bank and ultimately the learned Banking Court dismissed the said application vide order, dated 16‑5‑2001, hence the present appeal.

3. None has entered appearance to represent the respondents Nos.2 to 13, therefore, they are proceeded ex parte.

4. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant filed an objection petition before the learned Banking Court. but the same has been dismissed without providing an opportunity of producing evidence in order to prove his case.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that he has no objection to the remand of the case if the appellant is directed to pay the decretal amount before entertaining the objection petition as provided under Order XXI rule 23‑A, C.P.C.

6. Upon the examination of the record, we find that the appellant is one of judgment‑debtors and in the said capacity, he has filed an objection petition under Order XXI, rules 58, 59 and 60, C.P.C. Order XXI, rule 23‑A, C.P.C. provides that objection filed by the judgment‑debtor cannot be considered unless, he either deposits the decretal amount in Court or furnishes security for its payment. The learned counsel has rightly submitted that before entertaining the objection petition, filed by the appellant he may be directed to comply with the provisions of Order 21, rule 23‑A, C.P.C. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Banking Court has not considered the said legal aspect of the case and proceeded to dismiss the objection petition in a summary way.

7. In view of the concession made by the learned counsel for respondent No.1, as the appellant is one of the judgment‑debtors, therefore, we are inclined to direct the appellant to deposit the decretal amount in cash, before his objection petition could be entertained, within a period of two months from today.

8. Upshot of the above discussion is that the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order, dated 16‑5‑2001 is hereby set aside with no order as to costs. Result would be that the objection petition, filed by the appellant, shall be entertained by the learned Banking Court only after the appellant deposits the decretal amount in cash. In case the appellant deposits the decretal amount as directed above, then his objection petition shall be decided after affording adequate opportunity to the parties to produce their evidence to establish their respective claims and of course, in accordance with law within a period of three months. In case the appellant will not deposit the decretal amount within the stipulated period, his objection petition shall deem to have been dismissed. S.A.K./A‑652/L Order accordingly.