' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---Respondent No, 1 /Union Bank Limited, filed a suit for recovery against the respondents Nos,2 to 6, for an amount of Rs,64,00,000. It may be pertinent to state that in order to secure the finance, the said respondents had mortgaged the following seven properties:--
(1) Building bearing No,717-A/1 Township, Lahore measuring 1 Kanal, 8 Marlas and 197.5 sq. Ft.
(2) House No,102, Block M measuring 1 Kanal and 204 sq. Ft. Gulberg III, Lahore.
(3) Plot No,79, Block B Sheeraz Housing Scheme bearing Khasra No,519, Khewat No,6, Khatooni No,12, Mouza Bagrian, Dharam Chand, Tehsil and District Lahore measuring 1 Kanal.
(4) House No,52 1/2 portion, Street No,107, Krishan Nagar, Lahore bearing Property No,SVV-III-107- S52.
(5) House No,52 1/2 portion, Street No,107, Krishan Nagar, Lahore bearing Property No,SW-III-107-S52.
(6) Property bearing Khasra No,1184/I, Mouza Bhikewal measuring 1 Kanal, 19 Marlas, Tehsil and District Lahore; and
(7) Double storey building bearing Khata No,303, Khatooni No,544, Square No,43, Khasra No,19/8/1/1, 19/11 measuring 4 Malras 187 sq. Ft. Near General Hospital, Sheikhupura.
' Ultimately, the suit was decreed in favour of - the respondent No,1, and against the said respondents on 28-1-1999; in the execution/satisfaction of the decree, the respondent- Bank/decree-holder applied to the Court under section 15(6) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2002, for the possession of the property mentioned at Serial No,1, and obtained an order from the Court in this behalf on 27-5-2002, and took the possession from the appellant, who by that time had purchased the property from its owner.
2. Resultantly, the appellant, aggrieved by the above, filed objections before the Court, claiming that the property in question has been purchased by him, in good faith, from the owner, after thorough inquiry, about his title to the property, and that there was no clog upon its transfer to the appellant and also got possession. The details in this regard are mentioned in the application and the present appeal; these objections have been dismissed by the learned Executing Court, through the order, dated 27-5-2002, hence this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends, that no valid mortgage had been created in favour of the respondent No,1; the appellant, for the reasons detailed in the memo. Of appeal, had made thorough inquiries about the lawful title of the property in question, that there was no encumberance on the property, and had purchased the same. It is also submitted, that there are other substantial mortgaged properties, mentioned at Serial Nos,2 to 7, from which the decree of the respondent-Bank, can be fully satisfied.
4. During the course of hearing of the appeal, the counsel for the parties in order to settle the matter, have mutually agreed that the impugned order be set aside, the possession of the property in question be restored to the appellant; the respondent-Bank shall first attempt to satisfy its decree by sale of the other properties, mentioned at Serial Nos,2 to 7, and in case the decree is not fully satisfied from these sales, the appellant shall pay the balance decretal amount to the Bank. In order to ensure transparency in the sale of the properties, mentioned at Serial Nos,2 to 7, the respondent-Bank through the registered cover, shall duly keep the appellant informed about the position of the sale of the properties. Till such time, the decree is fully satisfied, the appellant shall not alienate or encumber the property in any manner, whatsoever, or part with its possession.
5. In the light of above, the impugned order is set aside, and all the terms and conditions, mentioned above, shall form part of the judgment of this Court.