This appeal is filed against the order of the learned Banking Court dated 6-12-2005 dismissing objection petition dated 14-4-2005 filed by the appellants/judgment debtors under section 19(7) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 "Ordinance". The said objection petition by the appellants disputes the sale dated 6-4-2001 made by respondent No.3 of his property bearing No.BXXIII-5S44/6 RH "Property" that had earlier been attached by the learned Banking Court on 15-12-2000 in the respondent-Bank's suit filed on 6-1-2000.
2. It is alleged that the said sale was made surreptitiously and by collusion between the respondent-Bank and the respondent No.3. If the proceeds of sale in the alleged amount of Rs.4.0 million had been adjusted against the decretal amount, the sale of the mortgaged properties of the appellants shortly thereafter on 1-6-2001 for an amount of Rs.11.0 million may not have been necessary. As the appellants stand prejudiced by the sale of their mortgage properties, therefore, it is contended that their objection petition about the aforesaid sale by respondent No.3 ought to have been heard and adjudicated on merits by the learned Banking Court. The impugned order dismissed the said objection petition on the ground of the finality of the sale of the appellant's charged property for satisfaction of the decree by orders of all Courts up to the Honourable Supreme Court. Therefore, the objection petition has been found to contain no merit for re-opening the matters alleged.
3. A decree under section 10 of the Ordinance against the appellants Nos.1 and 2 and respondents Nos.2 to 5 was passed on 17-3-2001 upon their failure to file application for leave to defend the suit filed by the respondent-Bank. The said appellants/judgment debtors never challenged this decree whereunder their said mortgaged property was, sold by, the respondent-Bank on 1-6-2001. The objection petition by the said appellants/judgment debtors against the aforesaid sale was dismissed on 29-11-2001. Appeal against the said order was dismissed by this Court on 10-2-2003.
CPLA No.684 of 2003 filed against the said order was not pressed in terms of the order dated 10-3- 2005 by the Honourable Supreme Court as follows:-- "Order The learned counsel for the petitioners does not press the petition and wants to approach the competent forum for his redress in respect of the Property No.XBBIII-5S44-6/RH alleged to have been sold for Rs.40,00,000 and the yield of the same was not credited in the petitioners account towards the satisfaction of decree.
2. In view of the above statement, the petition is dismissed as not pressed."
3. Appellants Nos.3 and 4 did, however, file an application for leave to defend which was dismissed on 19-1-2002 but their appeal before this Court was disposed of on 10-2-2003 on the basis of settlement between the parties. That settlement was duly acted upon by the parties.
4. Relying upon the order dated 10-3-2005 passed by the Honourable Supreme Court, the appellants filed their presently relevant objection petition dated 14-4-2005. This fails to give any explanation to overcome the bar of limitation for challenging the alleged inaction of the respondent-Bank in relation to the private sale of the property of respondent No.3 made on 6-4- 2001 and the appellants' failure to act sooner for the cancellation of the sale certificate dated 24- 8-2001 in respect of their mortgaged properties. Even if the bar of limitation is disregarded the essence of the appellant's case is that because the respondent-Bank did not object to the private sale of an uncharged albeit attached property on 6-4-2001 by respondent No.3 therefore, there was collusion by the bank and, inter alia, the subsequent sales of other mortgaged properties belonging to the appellants be set aside. The plea is presumptuous being without support of any legal sanction or cogent material to sustain the prayer. The plea is also futile because as soon. As the claim of the decree-holder bank stands satisfied by sale of the mortgaged property in execution proceedings, then such bank has no legal obligation to chase the undoing of any irregular private sale of property made by the respondent No.3. Therefore, the stand taken by the appellants is wishful quite apart from being self- contradictory. On the one hand it is said that the private sale of the property attached by a Banking Court is barred and therefore, void under section 23(2) of the Ordinance; on the other hand, it is asserted that such a sale by the impugned transaction be affirmed by the Court for obtaining the adjustment of its sale price against the decree dated 17-3-2001 and the consequent reversal of the sale of mortgaged properties. Quite apart from the grounds noted above, this relief cannot be granted by the. Court because, it involves the recognition of the disputed post decretal private sale dated 6-4-2001 to be valid although prima facie it is entered in contravention of section 23(2) of the Ordinance which treats post decretal transactions of properties by judgment debtors to be void. The Court cannot at the instance of the appellants in the objection petition ignore the statutory mandate to invest validity on the said transaction.
5. For the reasons discussed above this appeal has no merit and is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. 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.