This appeal is directed against the order dated 5-5-2004, whereby the objection petition filed by the present appellant was dismissed.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that respondent No.1-Bank filed a suit for recovery against the present appellant before the Banking Court, Gujranwala. Summons were issued, however, neither the appellant entered appearance nor filed an application for leave to defend the suit, consequently, the suit was decreed in favour of respondent No.1-Bank against the appellant vide judgment dated 20-6-2000. The execution proceedings followed and during such proceedings the Banking Court executing the decree directed the auction of the property in dispute. It appears from the record that on the day of the auction no one appeared to purchase the property in dispute and the respondent No.1-Bank alone participated in the auction and purchased the same for a total amount of Rs.150,000. Subsequently, the respondent No.1-Bank after obtaining the sale certificate sold the property to respondent No.3. Meanwhile, the appellant filed an objection petition seeking setting aside of the sale, which was dismissed by the Banking Court vide the impugned order dated 5-5-2004.
3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record available with this appeal perused.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the property in dispute measuring 106 Kanals and 1 Marla has been sold for a very low price that too, to the respondent No.1-Bank without obtaining permission from the Court in this behalf, hence, the sale should have been set aside.
5. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellant have been controverted by the learned counsel for the respendent No.1-Bank as well as the counsel for subsequent purchaser i.e. Respondent No.3. It is contended on their behalf that the auction was conducted in accordance with law and the appellant had knowledge thereof, who deliberately chose not to file any objections within the time specified therefore, the said objection petition has been rightly dismissed. It is further contended by learned counsel for respondent No.3 that the property has since been purchased by the said respondent who have developed the same and, therefore, no indulgence should be shown to the appellant.
6. It is clear and obvious from the record that the appellant did not file any objection petition within the time specified therefore and the objection petition was rightly dismissed by the Executing Court. However, even in the cases wherein no objection petition is filed against an auction conducted by a Court, the said Court has the inherent jurisdiction to suo motu examine whether a serious attempt has been made to sell the property at a reasonable price and auction has been conducted in accordance with the law. In the instant case, the property in question has been purchased by the judgment-debtor, at what appears to be a rather low price and thereafter immediately sold it to respondent No. 3 at a price several times the amount at which that was purchased. A perusal of the record discloses that this aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration; consequently, this appeal is accepted; the impugned order is set aside; and the case is remanded to the Banking Court, to decide whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the sale has been carried out in accordance with law. The appeal is accepted and the case is remanded in the above terms.