' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 16th May, 2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby F.A.O. Filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by means of impugned judgment.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are respondent No,1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs,6,78,556 before the Banking Court against the petitioners as they failed to return the amount of the Bank.
Petitioners were given an opportunity of hearing and the Banking Court ultimately did not allow them permission to leave to defend the suit and passed a decree in favor of respondent-Bank. The Bank then resorted to execution proceedings for the recovery of the decretal amount and during the process of these proceedings the orders for auction of the property owned by the petitioners were passed. Petitioners challenged the orders, of auction of property before the trial Court through an application under Order XXI, rule 90, C.P.C. However, the said application was, ultimately dismissed by the trial Court. F.A.O. Filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by means of impugned judgment. As such instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed.
3. Learned counsel contended that now the petitioners are ready to deposit 15% of the auction amount, in view of the compromise, arrived at between the parties, in pursuance whereof Writ Petition No,21894 of 1999 was disposed of vide order dated 10th April, 2001.
4. The contention so raised by the learned counsel has no substance. As a careful perusal of order of disposing of writ petition vide order dated 10th April, 2001, clearly indicates that it was conditional order as petitioners were required to deposit decretal amount before the Banking Court within a period of one month, but admittedly they failed to do so, with the result that sale of the house in favor of auction-purchaser was confirmed and certificate of sale was issued. It is important to note that by the time the property has changed three hands as respondent No,2 sold the house to respondent No,3 from whom respondent No,4 has purchased the same. As the process of selling the property to satisfy the decree has gone much ahead, therefore, no relief at this stage can be granted to the petitioners.
5. No other point was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
' Thus, for the foregoing reasons petition is dismissed and leave declined.
' Leave to appeal declined.