' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.--- This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 14-11-2002 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment of the Banking Court of confirmation of sale of the property in dispute in execution of decree passed against them has been dismissed.
2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition shortly stated are that on 14-7-1998, a decree was passed against the petitioners for an amount of Rs,1, 21, 31,289. The appeal filed by them against the said decree was dismissed by the High Court. For execution of the said decree, proceedings through execution petition were commenced. The property was ordered to be auctioned for satisfaction of decretal amount. It appears that the petitioners filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Which was dismissed through order, dated 1-3-2001 by the Banking Court.
3. Against the auction proceedings of the property, the petitioners filed an objection petition. The main ground urged in the said objection petition was invalidity of the auction proceedings for the reasons that according to the schedule given by the Execution Court, the auction was to take place on 11-5-2000 whereas the auction was made on 13-5-2000 without issuance of proper public notice. The property was purchased by the private respondent for an amount of Rs,39, 50,000 being the highest bidder which has 'been confirmed by the Banking Court from which this petition has arisen.
4. The said objection petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 24-5-2000. An application for restoration was made which was accepted and the objection petition restored on 1-11-2000.
Certified copies of the record and the proceedings of the Executing Court appended with this petition show that the said objection petition was again dismissed on 19-12-2000 for default, for restoration of which, an application was moved. The said application .For restoration was being preceded along with the application made by the petitioners under section 12(2), C.P.C. It appears that the Court dismissed the application as mentioned above made under section 12(2), C.P.C. But there is no order for dismissal of the said restoration application. After the dismissal of application under section 12(2), C.P.C., the Court proceeded to consider the question of confirmation or otherwise of the sale which was confirmed through judgment dated 1-3-2001 against which appeal filed by petitioners has been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 14-11-2002 against which leave is sought.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that failure of the Executing Court to decide the application for restoration of the objection petition has resulted in miscarriage of justice and has also adversely affected the disposal of the case of confirmation or otherwise of the sale on merits.
6. We have gone through the objection petition and find that the main objection was that the sale was ordered to be auctioned on 11-5-2000 according to the schedule given by the Executing Court but it was made on 13-5-2000. Learned counsel for the petitioners when asked as to how the petitioners for that reasons alone can be said to have been prejudiced in the matter of auction of the property in execution of decree, stated that a number of intending purchasers were ready to take part in the proceedings on 11-5-2000 but they did not have the notice that the property was going to be sold on 13-5-2000.
7. The argument has no force. If the auction as per schedule given by the Executing Court was not notified to take place on 11-5-2000, there is no question of any person as intending purchaser to have come to know that the property was going to be auctioned on 11-5-2000. Even if such a purchaser knew about the schedule of the Court that the property should be auctioned on 11-5- 2000, he if had approached the auctioneers of the Court would have come to know that the property was scheduled to be auctioned by the auctioneers on 13-5-2000, therefore, we are not inclined to accept this argument which is hereby repelled. It appears that this argument has been raised merely to delay the execution of decree and satisfaction thereof.
8. The objection petition was got dismissed for non-prosecution at earlier stage also which was restored on the application of the petitioners and after restoration, they were again negligent and it was dismissed for non-prosecution for the restoration of which, application was made which according to the petitioners had not been disposed of. As noticed above, even if the said objection petition had been restored and the grounds urged therein as discussed above were taken into consideration, the same were not sufficient grounds under the law for setting aside auction itself, for the property was not auctioned earlier to the date fixed by the Court but two days later which for the reasons to follow did not adversely affect the auction proceedings.
9. The Robkar which was issued by the Officer of the Court to the auctioneers shows that the auction was to be made on 13-5-2000. In the order of the Court laying down the schedule, it was however, provided that auction shall take place on 11-5-2000. It was a bona fide mistake of the Officer of the Court that the Court auctioneers were not intimated that the auction would be made on 13-5-2000 therefore, if bonafidely acting on the said Court intimation, the auction was held on 13-5-2000, no bad intention or mala fide as alleged could be attributed to the Court auctioneers.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Executing Court had ordered that auction should be made after publication in the Daily Nawa-e-Waqat. He however, admitted that the auction of the property was made on more than two occasions and for one of the said occasions, it was made after due publication of notice in the Daily Nawae-Waqat. We have noticed that the petitioners one way or the other had been putting off the matter of auction of the property and avoiding execution of the decree and satisfaction thereof. The decree was passed as far back as in 1998 and the petitioners according to the facts established on record did not make any efforts to pay the decretal amount or any part thereof despite lapse of 5 years. The sale of the property in the present auction proceedings which has been confirmed, has been held to have been made by publication of due notice by the auctioneers as required by law.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to satisfy us that the sales of the property and auction proceedings suffer from any illegality justifying interference by this Court.
12. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no force which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.