' This single judgment shall decide the present appeal (E.F.A. No,403 of 2003 and the connected appeal (E.F.A. No,386 of 2003), as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the appeals, they are between the same parties and the impugned orders are identical in both the cases.
2. The appellants, through the present appeals, have called in question orders dated 27-8-2003, whereby the learned Judge Banking Court dismissed appellant's two objection petitions on the ground that they failed to deposit 20% of the sale price.
3. Precisely stated the facts of the two appeals are that pursuant to passing the decrees for the recovery of Rs,444,898 (against the appellant) and for a sum of Rs,630,954 (against deceased father of the appellant), both dated 18-3-1999, the respondent-Bank filed separate execution petitions. During the execution process, the properties belonging to the appellants were put to auction, which were itself purchased by the respondent-Bank for a sum of Rs,705,000 and Rs,946,475, respectively. The decree-holder filed the applications for confirmation of the said sales and issuance of sale certificates and the notices were issued to the appellants. Thereupon, the appellants filed two objections petitions, seeking setting aside of sale of their properties. The learned Banking Court directed the appellants to deposit 20% of the sale amount, vide separate orders dated 30-6-2003. The appellants did not deposit the said amount and the learned Judge Banking Court, after finding that 20% of the sale price has not been deposited, proceeded to dismiss appellant's objection petitions and confirmed the sale, vide composite orders dated 27-8- 2003, hence the present appeals.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that orders dated 30-6-2003, passed by the learned Judge Banking Court, directing the appellant to deposit 20% of the sale price is illegal and without jurisdiction, as the learned Judge Banking Court, while hearing objection petitions, under section 19(7) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, is not competent to pass such an order. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the appellant undertook to deposit 20% of the sale price, for that he filed an application before the learned Judge Banking Court and the appellant was allowed by the Banking Court to deposit the said amount, vide order dated 22-7-2003.
5. We have heard the learned counsel and examined the available record. The only-question involves in the present cases is as to whether the learned Judge Banking Court, acting as an executing Court, while hearing objection petitions, has the jurisdiction to direct a petitioner to make a deposit of 20% of the sale price as a condition precedent for hearing his objection petitions. 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 the 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 were passed in complete oblivion of the law laid down by this Court in the cases of Messrs Majid and Sons and Messrs Noor Hayat Industries (ibid.), which are binding on the Banking Courts. Thus, we are of the view that the impugned orders, whereby appellant's objection petitions were dismissed due to non-deposit of 20% of the sale price, are not sustainable in law. In the said perspective, we have examined the impugned orders and find that same are illegal, without jurisdiction and have been passed in complete ignorance of the law laid down by this Court, therefore, we are persuaded to set the same aside.
7. In view of the above, both the appeals are allowed, and the impugned orders both dated 27-8- 2003 are set aside. Resultantly appellant's objection petitions shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Judge Banking Court, who shall decide the said objection petitions after hearing the parties and of course in accordance with law within a period of tow months from today.
' Parties are directed to appear before the concerned learned Judge Banking Court on 2-3-2006.