' JAVED IQBAL, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order, dated 13-6-2002 passed by learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the criminal revision preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed and order dated 13-4-2002 passed by learned Presiding Officer of the Banking Court, Lahore has been kept in tact.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case as enumerated in the order impugned are to the effect that "on a suit brought by respondent No,1, the Banking Court passed a money decree against respondents Nos.3 and 4 (Mian Mumtaz Saleem and Mian Khalid Mahmood). The decree-holder filed an execution petition and in execution petition thereof, Flats Nos.5 and 6, 2nd Floor in Patiala Complex were attached for auction. Petitioner/allottee (Mian Javed Saleern), claiming to be the real owner of the attached-auction properties, filed applications including one under section 12(2) of C.P.C. And under sections 192 and 193 of P.P.C. For initiating criminal proceedings against the judgment-debtors,. These two applications after due notice and contest have been rejected.
Hence, the appeal under section 22 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, insofar as rejection of application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Is concerned and revision under section 435/439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, insofar as rejection of application under sections 192 and 193, P.P.C. Is concerned. It may be noticed that various applications were disposed of by the learned Banking Court on 13-4-2002, by a single composite order". Being aggrieved a criminal revision was filed assailing the said order of learned Banking Court which was dismissed vide judgment impugned, hence, this petition.
3. Nawab Saeed Ullah Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court entered appearance on behalf of petitioner and urged with vehemence that the property in question does not belong to judgment- debtors, (respondents Nos.3 and 4) and thus, it could not have been mortgaged by them with the respondent-Bank and therefore, the question of its auction for the realization of the decretal amount does not arise. It is contended emphatically that after having received the information regarding fraud committed by the respondents (Nos.3 and 4) it was bounden duty of the Court to take cognizance and proceed with the matter under sections 192 and 193, Cr.P.C. And further to initiate proceedings against them for the commission of offence under sections 467/471, 419/420, P.P.C. It is argued that it was a case of impersonation because the respondents (Nos.3 and 4) who were not owners, of the property have shown themselves to be the owners, by committing fraud on the basis of PT-1 Form from the Excise and Taxation Department which event un-noticed by the learned High Court without any rhyme and reason and on this score alone the order impugned is liable to be set aside.
4. We have carefully examined the above mentioned contentions in the light of relevant provisions of law, record of the case and perused the order dated 13-4-2002 passed by learned Presiding Officer of the Banking Court as well as the order impugned. After having gone through the entire record, the case of the petitioner seems to be that respondents (Nos.3 and 4) have committed a fraud by mortgaging the property with the respondent-Bank, ownership whereof was never vested in them. It is also the case of the petitioner that fraud was also. Committed by the respondents who got the property in question allotted for obtaining PT-1 Form from the office of Excise and Taxation Department but the allotment of the property in question was subsequently cancelled. The learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner when pointedly asked as to how the ownership of this property devolved upon the petitioner, no satisfactory answer could be given. Learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner was also asked to show the cancellation order qua the property in question allegedly got allotted by respondents (Nos.3 and 4) fraudulently but learned Advocate Supreme Court neither could produce it nor inform when, where and by whom the allotment in favour of respondents was cancelled. The petitioner failed miserably to produce any worthy of credence evidence showing that property in question belonged to him. No evidence worth the name could be produced to substantiate the alleged fraud. We are of the considered view that the initiation of criminal proceedings can hardly render any assistance in such-like cases as the ultimate fate depends upon evidence which is lacking in this case. The Courts below have determined in a categoric manner that being owners, of the property in question it could have been mortgaged by respondents (Nos.3 and 4). The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below regarding the factum of ownership cannot be reversed without concrete reasoning and lawful justification which is lacking in this case. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the order impugned which being well-based hardly warrants interference.
The nutshell of the above-mentioned discussion is that the petition IB being meritless is dismissed and .