' Brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that respondent No,3 filed a suit for recovery of Rs.24,13,000 against respondent No,4 before the Banking Court, Sialkot which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 29-4-1999. Respondent No,4 did not challenge the said decree before any higher. Forum. The respondent-Bank filed execution petition before the Banking Court. The learned Banking Court appointed Mian Javed Iqbal, Advocate, as Court Auctioneer, who fixed the date as 2-8-1999 to sell the property in question of respondent No,4 measuring 16 Kanals. The auction was not held on the pointation of the petitioner that the land mentioned in auction notice is measuring 16 Kanals and 9 Marlas; whereas the land in question in the ownership of respondent No,4 is 16 Kanals. The Court Auctioneer fixed the next date for auction as 28-8-1999. The petitioner and respondent No,2 participated in the auction proceedings held by the Court Auctioneer, but the same was not finalized on the said date and auction was adjourned for 30-8-1999.
2. The learned counsel of the. Petitioner submits that Court Auctioneer intimated the parties and auction was not held as sufficient bidders could not participate in the auction proceedings and the auction was again adjourned but subsequently, a report was submitted before the learned Banking Court that the petitioner did not deposit Rs.25,000 in the terms of auction notice, therefore, bid of respondent No,2 was amounting to Rs.2,20,000 be accepted. The petitioner filed objection petition before the learned Banking Court. The learned Banking Court dismissed the objection petition vide order dated 29-4-2000. He further submits that the impugned order of the Banking Court is not sustainable in the eye of law. He further submits that the land in question belonged to the forefather of the petitioner, who had sold the land to respondent No,4 therefore, the petitioner is interested to purchase the ancestral land of his forefather. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. The petitioner had given undertaking to deposit Rs.3,00,000 with the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court on or before 20-5-2000. The petitioner deposited Rs.3,00,000 before the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court on 16-5-2000.
4. The learned counsel of respondent No,2 submits that auction was held in accordance with law.
The petitioner submitted an objection petition before the learned Banking Court and according to which the petitioner was ready to purchase the land in question amounting to Rs.2,25,000. He further submits that learned counsel of the petitioner failed to point out any infirmity and illegality in the impugned order, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He further submits that property in-question is not mortgaged with any Bank. Learned counsel of Bank-decree-holder submits that the land in question was mortgaged with the respondent-Bank as the respondent- Bank sanctioned loan in favour of respondent No,4 after mortgaging the land in question. He further submits that decree of the respondent-Bank is not satisfied till date.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.
6. It is settled principle of law that this Court has ample powers to look into the subsequent events as per principle laid down by the Division Bench of Karachi High Court in Nasir Jamal v. Zubeida Begum (1990 CLC 1069) and the Honourable Supreme Court in Mst. Amina Begum and others v.
Mehar Ghulam Dastgir (PLD 1978 SC 220). It is admitted fact that the petitioner has shown his bona fide to purchase the land in question in the sum of Rs.3,00,000 and the petitioner has deposited the said amount with the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court on 16-5-2000, whereas the bid of respondent No,2 is amounting to Rs.2,20,000.
7. In this view of the matter, the impugned order of the learned Banking Court dated 29-4-1999 is set aside with the direction to the learned Banking Court to re-auction the land in question by fixing base consideration amounting to Rs.3,00,000, in case no bidder is ready to purchase the land in question in the sum of Rs.3,00,000, the petitioner is entitled to purchase the said land for Rs.3,00,000. The petitioner cannot change his stand which was taken before this Court on 11-5-2000 on the well-known principle of approbate and reprobate. The learned Banking Court is directed to re-auction the property in question after issuing public notice and allow all the persons, who would be interested to purchase the same. The Banking Court is further directed to complete this process within 2 months positively even at the costs of day-to-day proceedings. The petitioner is not allowed to withdraw the aforesaid amount, deposited with the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court till the aforesaid period. In case, the bid of the petitioner is highest and shall be approved and accepted by the Banking Court, then this amount shall be adjusted in the said auction amount.
Parties are directed to appear before the learned Banking Court concerned on 2-6-2003.
' With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.