' The appeal in hand and Executive First Appeal No,341 of 2006 are against the same impugned order dated 9-5-2006, passed by learned Executing Court/the Banking Court, Lahore, hence are being disposed of together.
2. The very brief facts of the case are that the respondent-Bank brought a suit for the recovery of Rs,5,301,972.90 against Messrs Common Traders (Pak) Pvt. Ltd., who is the principal borrower in the matter, and also against the appellants in both the appeals as being the guarantors of the finance.
This suit has been decreed by the Banking Court on 19-5-2004. The respondent-Bank brought proceeding for the execution of the decree by way of sale of the mortgaged property of both the appellants. The appellant in Executive First Appeal No,341 of 2006 moved an application seeking indulgence of the Court for the sale of his property by private negotiation. The Court has rejected the application and has directed the sale of the mortgaged properties of both the appellants/guarantors. It may be pertinent to mention that the appellant in Executive First Appeal No,278 of 2006 also moved an application, wherein it was prayed that the decree should first be satisfied by the sale of the property of other guarantor, who was imputed to be the principal borrower of the finance and was alleged to be the real beneficiary. The Court vide impugned order has rejected the claim as well. Hence these appeals.
3. The submission made by the learned counsel in E.F.A. No,278 of 2006 that the appellant is only a guarantor, whereas, respondent No,2 is the guarantor and also the principal borrower, therefore, first his property be put to auction, is absolutely unfounded, because according to the record, the finance was granted to Messrs Common Traders (Pak) Pvt. Ltd. And the said respondent has only signed the agreement as being the Director of the Company, whereas, his status as the guarantor is admitted and independent. Similarly, the arguments of the appellant's counsel in Executive First Appeal No,341 of 2006 that he be permitted to sell the property through private negotiation, cannot be allowed, as it is the prerogative of the decree-holder to seek the execution and the satisfaction of his decree through the mode he chooses. No case-law has been cited by the learned counsel, under which, the judgment debtor should be permitted to sell the mortgaged property through private negotiations. Both these appeals have no merit and are accordingly dismissed.