2003 PLP 550 (CLD)

‑‑‑‑O.XXI, Rr.84, 89, 90 & 91‑‑‑Provisions of O.XXI, Rr.89, 90 & 91, C.P.C.‑‑‑Applicability‑‑‑Such provisions would come into play after acceptance of an offer of sale of property by Court‑‑‑Expression "may apply to have the sale set aside" as used in O.XXI, R.89, C.P.C. clearly showed that there must be an order of Court, which was required to be set aside on certain grounds‑‑‑In absence of an order accepting bid of a person, no right could be deemed to have arisen in his favour. Muhammad Arshad Iqbal for Petitioner. Arshad Mobin for Respondents Nos.3 and

4. Aftab Hussain Soomro for Respondent No.5. The petitioner has called in question an order of the learned Banking Court directing re‑auction of property proposed to be sold in execution of a decree. It appears that after publication of a sale proclamation offers were invited for purchase of an apartment owned by the judgment‑debtor. Three offers were received on the initial date of offer i.e. 28‑8‑2001 and the petitioner's offer of Rs.3,80,000 seems to be the highest. However, the learned Judge apparently considering, prima facie, that the offer was low directed that the market value of the property be ascertained. Thereafter, respondent No.5 submitted an application offering to purchase the property for Rs.4,05,

000. The learned Banking Court recorded an order to the effect that the offer of respondent No.5 could not be accepted but if the aforesaid respondent agreed to pay the cost of auction, re‑auction could be ordered. The respondent No.5 agreed to do so whereupon the .Court passed the impugned order. Mr. Muhammad Arshad Iqbal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that after the petitioner's bid was found to be highest and he had deposited the entire sale consideration in terms of Order 21, rule 85, Civil Procedure Code his bid had to be accepted and a sale was required to be made on the basis of such bid unless it could be set aside on the limited grounds laid down in rules 89, 90 and 91 of Order 21, Civil Procedure Code. Learned counsel further contended that the respondent No‑5 did not have any prior interest in the property, and, therefore, his application could not be treated as one under Order 21, rule 89, Civil Procedure Code. The arguments which, prima facie, seem to carry force fails to notice that rules 89, 90 and 91 of Order 21, Civil Procedure Code come into play only when an offer of sale of property has been accepted by the Court. The expression "may apply to have the order set aside" occurring in rule 89, Civil Procedure Code clearly shows that there must first be an order of the Court which is required to be set aside on certain grounds. The documents placed before us clearly show that no such order was made by the Court. The only two orders which have been placed on record show that in the first one the Court had directed that market price of the property be ascertained and in the second one had directed that the property be re‑auctioned. Moreover, the sale notice itself indicates that the tentative price of the property was considered to be Rs.4,50,000 by ,the Court. We are, therefore, of the view that in the absence of an order p accepting the petitioner's bid no right can be deemed to have arisen and the petition is liable to be dismissed, alongwith the listed application. There shall be no order as to costs. S.A.K./Z‑34/K Petition dismissed.