UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.---This appeal is filed against the order dated 8-8-2003 passed by the learned Executing Court rejecting the objections by the appellant/decree-holder as well as by two other objectors who offered to pay higher price on A the ground that the appellant's objection is time-barred and the other bidders objections did not disclose substantial injury as required by Order XXI, rule 90, C.P.C.
2. The appellant objects that the terms of auction are to be finalized and approved by the learned Executing Court under Order XXI, rule 66, P.P.C. These terms must necessarily contain the reserve price of property under auction. In the present case 'by order dated 18-12-2002 the learned Executing Court approved the reserve price of Rs,8 million for the property under auction.
Thereafter, the auction was attempted abortively by the Court-auctioneer on 5-2-2003 and 17-2- 2003. Finally on 5-3-2003, he reduced the reserve price unilaterally and finalized the auction at Rs,0.5 million, at 1/10th of the reserve price fixed by the Court. The only question before us is whether the sale of the auction property below the reserve price fixed by the learned Executing Court is valid or not.
3. It is a settled law that the reserve price of a property under auction must be fixed by the approval of the Court. Neither the Court-auctioneer nor the parties to the decree have authority to modify a duly fixed reserve price without such approval. In the present case the impugned sale dated 5-3- 2003 was finalized at a price below the reserve price fixed by the learned Executing Court obtaining approval for the reduction of the reserve price of the property under auction. Such action is illegal and consequently the sale concluded thereby is void.
4. The failure by the learned Banking Court to consider and deal with the said illegality upon the pretext of technical objections is deprecated. Be that as it may be learned Executing Court shall sell the property under auction through a fresh auction to be conducted strictly in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the highest bidder, respondent No,1 submits that his client, has made investments in the property after the date of, confirmation of auction. That is a matter to be considered by the learned Executing Court for the purposes of compensation, if at all. In the foregoing circumstances, this appeal is allowed.