' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---Instant appeal filed by the appellant/objector, proceeds against orders, dated 7-9-2005 and 6-10-2005, whereby the learned Judge Banking Court, acting as an Executing Court, directed the appellant to deposit 20% of the auction price of the mortgaged property and dismissed his objection petition on account of non-deoosit of the said amount respectively.
2. During the execution proceedings, initiated at the behest of the respondent-Bank, sale/auction of mortgaged property, belonging to the judgment-debtors, was conducted by the two Courts.
Auctioneers under the orders of the learned Banking/ Executing Court. The appellant was one of the bidders, who along with other persons, statedly, participated in the auction/sale, held on 15-7-2005.
Respondent No,2 emerged as highest bidder, he was declared so and consequently the Court Auctioneers submitted their report, before the learned Executing Court, recommending that the sale be confirmed in the name of Shaukat Ali, who then filed an application for confirmation of sale.
Seemingly aggrieved, the appellant tiled the objection petition and the learned Executing Court, vide order, dated 7-9-2005, directed him to deposit 20% of the auction sale/price of the mortgaged property. Admittedly, the said amount was not deposited by the appellant. Pursuant thereto appellant's objection petition was rejected on account of non-deposit of 20% of the sale price and simultaneously the sale/auction in favour of Shaukat All was confirmed and sale certificate was ordered to be issued in favour of the auction-purchaser, vide composite impugned order, dated 6- 10-2005. Hence the present appeal.
3. Respondent No,2 has personally been served for today, but none has entered appearance on his behalf. It appears that he is not interested in defending the appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned orders are against law and facts of the case, as there is no legal requirement to deposit 20% of the sale price along with an objection petition. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has supported the impugned orders.
5. We have heard the learned counsel and examined the available record. Prime question involves in the present case is as to whether the learned Judge Banking Court acting as an executing Court, while hearing objection petition, has the jurisdiction to direct an objector to make a deposit of 20% of the sale price as a condition precedent for hearing his objection petition. The said legal question was examined by the Division Bench of this Court in the cases reported as Messrs Majid and Sons and another v. National Bank of Pakistan 2002 CLD 1742 and Messrs Noor Hayat Industries (Pvt.) Ltd.
Through Chief Executive v. Judge Banking Court No,1, Multan and 5 others 2004 CLD 1281 and it was held that the executing Court acted in violation of law by directing the objector to make a deposit of 20% of sale deposits before hearing his objection petition and the condition imposed by the learned Banking Court was declared to be illegal. Needless to add that the decisions of this Court are binding on subordinate Courts per Article 201 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
We are in complete agreement with the principles of law declared in the said judgments.
6. It appears that the impugned orders to the extent of directing the appellants to deposit 20% of the sale price and dismissal of his objection petition for non-deposit of the said amount, were passed in complete oblivion of the law laid down by this Court in the cases of Messrs Majid & Sons and Messrs Noor Hayat Industries (ibid), which are binding on the Banking Courts. Thus, we are of the view that the impugned orders, to the extent noted above are not sustainable in law. In the said perspective, we have examined the impugned order and find that same to the extent of deposit of 20% and dismissal of the objection petition are illegal, without jurisdiction and has been passed in complete oblivion of the law laid down by this Court, therefore, we are persuaded to set the same aside.
7. However, under the present circumstances and at this stage, we are not inclined to set aside the sale in favour of respondent No,2, as fate of the sale will be decided by the learned Executing Court at the time of deciding appellants' objection petition. Needless to add that in the normal circumstances after the confirmation of sale, it is not set aside but if the sale itself has become invalid, its confirmation would also be invalid. Reference can be made to Afzal Maqsood Butt v.
Banking Court No,2, Lahore and 8 others 2005 CLD 967.
8. In the above perspective, the present appeal stands decided in the following terms:---
(i) The appeal is partly allowed and the impugned orders, dated 7-9-2005 and 6-10-2005, for the deposit of 20% of the sale price and to the extent of dismissal of appellant's objection petition for non-deposit of 20% of the sale price, are set aside. Resultantly, appellants' objection petition shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Judge B. Inking Court, who shall decide the same after hearing the parties and of course in accordance with law.
(ii) Rest of order, dated 6-10-2005, regarding confirmation of sale, favouring Shaukat Ali, shall remain intact and hold the field, however, the learned Executing Court, at the time of deciding objection petition, shall also decide the fate of the sale, favouring respondent No,2, of course after hearing all the concerned, particularly respondent No,2.
(iii) No order as to costs.
' Parties are directed to appear before the learned judge Banking Court on 7-4-2006. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.