' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---Briefly stated the facts of the case are, that the respondent-Bank, filed a suit for recovery, inter alia, against the appellants, in which the appellants did not file any leave application, therefore, a decree to the tune of Rs,1,35,93,769.33, has been passed against them on 17-3-2001. For the satisfaction of the decree, the respondent-Bank applied to the Court under section 18 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, etc.) Act, 1997, for the possession of the mortgaged properties i,e, plots Nos,119 and 120, situated at Ghazipur Road, Sialkot, for the purposes of the private sale; this permission was granted by the Court, vide order dated 7-4-2000. The possession was accordingly taken over by the Bank; the Bank advertised the property for sale in the Dailies "Din", 'Nawa-e-Waqt' and "The Nation", the properties have been sold to the respondent No,6, for a price of Rs,1,10,00,000, but before the sale could be made, the appellants, filed objections on 10-5-2001, which objection petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, vide order dated 24-8- 2001. The appellants on 30-8-2001, filed another application, in which it is claimed by the counsel for the appellants, that the restoration of the objection petition was sought; besides, objections to the sale made in favour of respondent No,6 were raised afresh; on these applications, notice was issued to the respondent No,6, who appeared and took up the plea, that the appellants be directed to deposit 20% of the sale price of the two plots in terms of Order XXI, rule 90, C.P.C. Resultantly, on 13-9-2001, the learned Banking Court, was pleased to direct the appellants, to make the deposit of such amount by or before 6-10-2001. However, instead of making the deposit within the time given, the appellants, applied to the Court for the extension of time, as is clear from the following order dated 6-10-2001, passed by the Court:-- "6-10-2001.
' Reply of the both the applications have been filed. Learned counsel for the judgment-debtor has submitted an application for extension of time for deposit of 20% of the sale amount on which learned counsel for the purchaser has no objection, therefore, he is allowed to deposit the said amount within 15 days. In case of default for deposit of the 20% objection petition shall stand dismissed. To come up on 3-11-2001."
' Even after the extension of the time; the appellants did not deposit the amount, rather on 3-11- 2001, moved an application for the review of the earlier orders; this application has been contested by the respondents, and has been dismissed, vide impugned order dated 29-11-2001.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants states, that the order directing the appellants, to make the deposit of 20% in terms of Order XXI, rule 90, C.P.C., is absolutely illegal and unlawful, because on the one hand the properties of the appellants i,e, Plots Nos,119 and 120, had been sold in execution fraudulently, and on the other, the appellants were compelled to take additional burden of depositing of 20%, which tantamounts to denying the appellants a right to approach the Court and seek redressal of their grievance. It is also submitted, that the auction-purchaser himself had filed objections challenging the sale, but subsequently, withdrew the same with mala fide intention, therefore, on account of the above, the sale could not have been confirmed in favour of the respondent No,6.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In fact, in the present appeal, the appellants have not challenged the order dated 13-9-2001, whereby they were required to make the deposit, nor the order dated 6-10-2001, has been assailed, through which the extension was granted to them. The appellants themselves, had moved an application, which is available at page 367 of the paper book, through which the appellants sought further time to comply with the order dated" 13- 9-2001, and it is stated in paragraph 3 of the application, which reads as under:-- "3. That the petitioners could not succeed to deposit the said amount within the stipulated period due to the reason that one Mr. Wali Ullah, a relative to the attorneys of the petitioners sent money from Kuwait just a day before which could not reach to Pakistan in time."
' From the above, i.. Is clear that the appellants had accepted the order of the Court for the deposit.
Of the amount and sought extension of time complying with the order, thus, the appellants were precluded to file any review application against such order. Even otherwise, the scope of review is very limited and the appellants have failed to establish any order apparent on the face of the B record, or error of the like nature warranting the review of the earlier order. It may be pertinent to state, that the order refusing review has been assailed by the appellants, but as original order dated 13-9-2001 was not erroneous, which otherwise was accepted by the appellants. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any voice, which should be interfered.
4. In the light of above, we do not find any substance in the present appeal, which is hereby dismissed.