' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---Present appeal, under section 21 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 (the Act), proceeds against order dated 24-3- 2000, whereby the learned Judge Banking Court dismissed appellant's objection petition.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case, as discernible from the available record, are that the respondent- Bank submitted an execution petition before the then Banking Tribunal, for the execution of decree for a sum of Rs,31,69,807.13 passed against the appellant. The mortgaged property could not be sold by the executing Court for one reason or the other. The decree-holder, then, applied to the Banking Court for permission to sell the mortgaged property of its own, which permission was reportedly granted to it, vide order dated 30-3-1998. It appears that the mortgaged property was purchased by the respondent No,3 for a sum of Rs,12,00,000, sale in his favour was confirmed and the sale certificate was also issued. The appellant, then, filed an objection petition under section 18(6) of the Act for investigation of the claims, which was resisted by the respondents and ultimately the same was dismissed by the learned Judge Banking Court, vide impugned order dated 24-3-2000, hence the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the auction purchaser (respondent No,3), when asked as to whether the purchase money was deposited by him within the period stipulated in the law, has stated that respondent No,3 did not deposit the said amount within time, however, a sum of Rs,12,00,000 was deposited by him.
4. We have heard the learned counsel and examined the record. Even according to the stance of the auction purchaser, the purchase money was not deposited within the stipulated period inasmuch as 25% of the sale was not deposited at the time of the sale. Additionally, remaining 3/4th amount, as envisaged under Order XXI, rule 85', C.P.C. Was also not deposited. Although total amount was deposited by the auction purchaser, yet the same was in complete violation of Order XXI, rule 85, C.P.C., which was held to be mandatory provision of law. Reference case be made to Messrs Magi Chemicals Industries (Pvt.) Limited through Chief Executive and 3 others v. Habib Bank Ltd. Through Manager and 2 others 2003 CLD 571. An Executing Court has no power to extend the time for doing an act which has been determined and fixed by law. Even otherwise, the auction purchaser did not adhere to the terms and conditions, upon which the auction was held. Seeing from any angle, the sale in favour of auction purchaser cannot be upheld, the same stands vitiated and thus set aside.
4-A. At this point of time the learned counsel for the decree-holder has stated that in case judgment-debtor pays a sum of Rs,12,00,000, the decree will be satisfied. Learned counsel for the appellant has no objection to this course of action and submitted that the appellant is ready pay a aim of Rs,12,00,000, within a period of one month.
5. In view whereof, the appeal is decided in the following terms:--
(i) The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 24-3-2000 is set aside.
(ii) The sale in favour of respondent No,3 qua the mortgaged property, is also set aside.
(iii) Appellant undertakes to pay a sum of Rs,12,00,000 to the decree-holder within a period of one month in complete satisfaction of the decree dated 9-9-1996 passed against him for a sum of Rs,31,69,807.13.
(iv) In case the appellant pays the afore-noted amount in the manner stated in the preceding sub-para, the said decree shall stand satisfied and the mortgaged property shall be deemed to be released.
(v) In case the appellant does not pay a sum of Rs,12,00,000, then the decree-holder will be entitled to execute the decree.
(vi) Auction purchaser is allowed to withdraw a s n of Rs,12,00,000, statedly, deposited by him.
(vii) No order as to costs.