' SHEIKH AZMAT SAEED, J.---This appeal is directed against the order, dated 14-2-2006 whereby the objections filed by petitioners were dismissed. Grievance is also being raised through this appeal against the subsequent order, dated 28-2-2006 also passed by the Banking Court, Faisalabad.
2. Facts in brief giving rise to this E.F.A. Are that respondent-Bank filed a recovery suit against the appellants which was decreed, whereafter execution proceedings commenced. During course of the execution proceedings, property admittedly belonging to the appellants was directed to be auctioned. Eventually, while terms and conditions of the auction were in the process of being settled, the appellants/ judgment-debtors, filed an objection petition challenging terms and conditions which was rejected by the Banking Court in terms of order, dated 14-2-2006. Whereafter, petitioner filed another application seeking postponement of the sale so as to enable him to deposit the decretal amount. Said prayer too was turned down by the learned Judge of the Banking Court vide order, dated 28-2-2006.
3. Counsel for the parties have been heard and the record perused.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that reserve price was not fixed by the Court nor the time and venue of the auction determined by the Court and all these matters had been delegated to and left at the discretion of the Court auctioneer.
5. This is being controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent/decree-holder. Whereas, perusal of the record reveals that in fact reserve price has been fixed and approved by the Court by an earlier order, factum whereof is reflected from the order impugned, dated 14-2-2006. It is equally evident that venue of the auction was also fixed by the Court being at site. It appears that only date and time of auction has not been fixed with exactitude. In this view of the matter, we direct the trial Court to fix the date and time of the auction and thereafter to proceed with auction proceedings in accordance with law. No further order is required to be passed in this behalf.
6. As regards claim of the appellants for the grant of time for satisfaction of the decree, suffice it to say that there is no provision in law which enables the judgment-debtor to seek postponement of the auction of the property in order to satisfy the decree. There is nothing in law that impedes satisfaction of the decree by the judgment-debtor in accordance with and subject to limitation provided by law.
' Disposed of in the term indicated ibid.