' Present appeal, filed by the judgment-debtors, proceeds against the order dated 29-6-2006, whereby the learned Judge Banking Court acting as executing Court dismissed appellant's objection petition.
2. During the execution proceedings, undertaken by the learned Judge Banking Court, which were initiated at the behest of the respondent-Bank, against the appellants, Property No,45-A Small Industrial Estate-I (the property) was attached by the learned executing Court on 11-7-2005. The said property was put to auction/sale under the orders of the learned executing Court and to achieve the said objective, the Court Auctioneer submitted proposed terms and conditions of sale, which were objected by the judgment-debtors through the objection petition. However, the learned executing Court dismissed the objection petition, vide impugned order dated 29-6-2006, hence the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that only Plot No,45-A was attached by the Court, and the superstructure was not attached, therefore, the property is not liable to be auctioned as a whole and that the sale/auction was ordered to be held without attachment of property. He has further submitted that the judgment-debtors have paid a sum of Rs,40,50,000 during the course of execution proceedings, which amount has not been deducted from the decretal amount.
Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has submitted that all the objections raised by the learned counsel have duly been dealt with by the learned executing Court, therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court.
4. We have heard the learned counsel and examined the available record. The decree holder bank filed the application for attachment of Property/Plot No,45-A, which was resisted by the appellants but ultimately, the respondent-Bank's application was allowed and Property No,45-A was attached.
It appears appropriate to reproduce the concluding portion of order dated 11-7-2005, which reads as follows;- ' ".....So in these circumstances, to be on safer side, the Property No,45-A, presumed as a personal property of the judgment-debtor be attached for sale in execution of the decree. Application of the decree holder bank is accepted and the Property No,45-A situated at Small Industries Estate-I, Gujranwala be attached. Warrant of attachment of the said property be issued."
It flows from the above that Plot No,45-A was not attached but the Property bearing No, 45-A was attached. The learned executing Court has rightly held that the word "property" means the land and the things permanently attached with the land, therefore, the superstructure is also included in the term "property". It appears appropriate to reproduce a portion of the impugned order, which reads as follows and really clinches the matter.
' "So far as the Objection No,4 is concerned, the petitioner has maintained that the superstructure has not been attached and only the land/plot has been attached, so the petitioner has got the right to remove the superstructure. I have gone through the record. Property No,45-A has been attached vide order dated 11-7-2005. The word "property" means the land and the things .Permanently attached with that land. So the superstructure, which has been raised upon Plot No,45-A is also included in the definition of word "property" and thus it has also been attached and can be put to auction. This objection of the judgment-debtor is without force."
In view of the above, contention of the learned counsel has little substance and it is held that the property was attached, which includes the superstructure as well.
5. Second contention of the learned counsel on the face of it, is misconceived, as according to own showings of the appellants the Property No, 45-A was attached vide order dated 11-7-2005. In view of the said order, it cannot be urged that the property was not attached,
6. As regards the last contentions, suffice it to say that the judgment-debtors, if so advised, at the time of proclamation of sale, may bring the said fact to the notice of the learned executing Court, which shall, of course, decide the said objection in accordance with law.
7. In the above perspective, we have examined the impugned order and find that the contentions raised by the learned counsel have adequately and duly been dealt with by the learned executing Court and the findings whereof are not only in accordance with the record of the case but the same are also in consonance with the law on the subject.
8. In view of the above, the present appeal is devoid of any force, hence the same stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.