SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.-This is an application by the alleged auction purchaser seeking issuance of the sale certificate in her favour, it appears from the record that the property in question was mortgaged with the decree-holder bank. Apparently, the decree-holder bank without intervention of the Court sold the property in favour of the present petitioner on 23.4.2000. Whereafter CM No. 396- B/2001 was filed by the decree-holder bank seeking approval thereof. Whereupon the notice was issued to the present petitioner. The accounts were filed by the decree- holder bank, whereafter, vide order dated 18.6.2002, the said accounts were approved and vide order of the same date i.e. 18.6.2002, the execution application was disposed of and consigned to the record.
Now the present application has been filed seeking. Issuance of the sale certificate pursuant to the sale made by the decree-holder bank without intervention of the Court.
2. In the instant case a decree was passed in favour of the financial institution upon a suit filed by it against the Judgment-debtor in respect of a claim, which had inter alia been secured by mortgage of immovable property. After the passing of the decree the decree-holder bank claimed to have sold the property without the intervention of the Court. Thereafter in accordance with the provisions of Section 19 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, it filed and made available the account of such sale which accounts were, confirmed and the execution petition which had been pending before this Court was consigned to the record.
3. In the case in hand, it is clear and obvious that the sale was n6t effected by this Court but by the decree- holder bank itself. Since the sale without intervention of the Court was effected after the passing of the decree the matter falls squarely within the purview of Section 19 of the Ordinance /b/cf. Sub-section (5) of the Section 9 provides that inter alia sub-section (7) of Section 15 of the Ordinance, 2001 shall apply to the sale of the mortgaged property without intervention of the Court.
Section 15 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, pertains to the sale of the mortgaged property by a financial institution without intervention of the Court where no decree has been passed. Sub-section (7) of Section 15 reads as follows:- "15(7) For purposes of execution and registration of the sale-deed in respect of the mortgaged property, a financial institution shall be deemed to be. The duly authorized attorney of the mortgagor and a sale-deed executed and presented for registration by duly authorized attorneys of the financial institution shall be accepted for such purposes by the Registrar and Sub-Registrar under the Registration Act, 1908 (XVI of 1908)"
4. The question of transfer of the title has also been further amplified in sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Ordinance wherein it has been stated as under;- "19(3)-The decree passed by a Banking Court shall constitute and confer sufficient power and authority for the financial institution to sell or pause the sale of the mortgaged: pledged or hypothecated property together with transfer of marketable title and no further order of the Banking Court shall be required for this purpose".
5. Similar matter came up for adjudication before this Court in slightly different context in the case reported as UNITED BANK LIMITED V. DEFENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY (2004 CLD 215). in the case too, property situated in Defence Housing Authority had been sold by a financial institution without intervention of the Court and when the D.H.A, was approached for transfer of the property in the name of the purchaser, the said authority demanded inter alia the sale-deed executed by the decree-holder in favour of the purchaser be made available. This Court while emphasizing the jurisdiction of the Court to be exercised in such matters protecting and preserving the rights of the parties including thb owner of the property held as follows:- "............. ..........The position in the instant case, however, is that neither the execution and registration of the sale-deed had vet taken place nor the transaction was complete or its accounts were submitted before the Court when the petitioner and respondent No. 2 approached respondent No. 1 for necessary certification and transfer, it was in this context and circumstances that the Authority was justified to call upon the petitioner to complete legal formalities, in such a context, it cannot be held that authority acted illegally."
An over view of the statutory provisions reproduced above and the afore-quoted judgments make it clear and obvious that in case of a sale of mortgaged property by a financial institution without intervention of the Court, the mode of transfer of title would be through the execution of a deed of conveyance by the said financial institution and not by the Court through a sale certificate.
Consequently, this petition is misconceived and is hereby dismissed. 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.