' Mst. Sakina Bibi, obtained some loan facility from the respondent-Bank; she however, died on 22- 2-1988. On 30-6-1992, the respondent-Bank brought a suit for recovery against Sakhawat Ali, Zaman Khan, Falak Sher and Liaqat Ali, showing all of them to be the legal representatives of Mst.
Sakina Bibi. The suit was finally decreed on 30-11-1996. In execution of the decree, the property of Mst. Sakina Bibi, which had devolved upon the present appellants was sought to be put to auction; when the appellants approached the Court by filing objection petition, stating that, they had never been impleaded as party in the suit, though they were the legal representatives of the deceased lady and thus, the decree was not against them, which could not be executed qua the property, which is now owned by them. This objection petition has been dismissed by the learned Banking Court through the impugned order.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that admittedly, the appellants Nos.1 to 3 were not impleaded as party in the main suit. Confronted with the above, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank concedes that erroneously Sakhawat, Zaman Khan, and Falak Sher were arrayed as defendants, but realizing this error, the bank moved an application at the execution stage for impleading the appellants Nos. 1 to 3 as party to the proceedings; this application perhaps was allowed and the objection petition of the present appellants was dismissed.
3. We are afraid that, the learned Banking Court has absolutely failed to follow not only the law provided under the special statutes, but also the Civil Procedure Code, in relation to, who the necessary parties in a suit are, against A whom a valid decree can be passed. The learned Court has also violated the rule of natural justice by virtually passing a decree against those, who were not even party to the suit and such decree was neither executable against them nor the defect could be removed in the execution proceedings.
' In the light to above, by allowing this appeal, the objection petition filed by the appellants Nos.1 to 3 is accepted and the judgment and decree is held to be in-executable against them. However, if any other remedy is available to the respondent-Bank, that may be construed. It is clarified that, the decree against the appellant No,4, who was the original party, shall remain intact.