' SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.---Brief facts giving rise to this case are that the suit of the appellant for recovery of Rs,2,08,380 was filed before the Banking Court, Sargodha, where respondent No,2 was proceeded against ex parte and suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 27-7-2004.
During the course of execution, learned Executing Court passed order dated 27-7-2004, for the auction of the house of the appellant situated in New Satellite Town, Sargodha. The appellant moved an application for setting aside proceedings of auction. The application was disposed of with the observation that the property of the appellant is not being auctioned, rather it is the property of Abdur Razzaq and Shahnaz Parveen which is subject-matter of sale through auction.
The house of the appellant was auctioned for an amount of Rs,60,000 against which the appellant filed objections under Order XXI, Rule 90, C.P.C. The auction-purchaser moved an application for refund of the auction prict. Deposited by him in the Court. Learned Executing Court directed the appellant to deposit Rs,63,000 for which the appellant filed another application for recall of order dated 26-10-2005. The objection petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by learned Executing Court vide order dated 20-12-2005.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that application filed by the appellant cannot be dismissed summarily as the Court was bound to frame issues and record evidence. He further submitted that the disputed house was owned by Abdur Razaq and Shahnaz Parveen, who transferred the said house to Ahmad Saeed through registered sale-deed dated 25-10-2003 and Mutation No,809 in this respect, was attested. The appellant purchased this house from Ahmad Saeed through registered sale-deed dated 8-5-2004 and property was mutated in favour of the appellant vide Mutation No,827. Learned counsel went on to argue that these documents sufficiently prove the property in dispute is owned by the appellant. Learned counsel has further submitted that the decretal amount can be satisfied from the salary of respondents Nos.2 and 3 and they have sufficient property wherefrom decretal amount can be realized. The Bank instead of proceeding against the principal borrower, has proceeded to recover the amount from the property of the appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the Court ordered the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs,63,000 vide order dated 26-10-2005. The order of deposit has not been challenged by the appellant before any Court of law and the same holds the field.
Learned Court dismissed the objection petition for 'non-compliance of deposit of the amount. It was stated that the impugned order is devoid of any illegality.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available on the file.
5. The appellant was directed to deposit Rs,63,000 vide order dated 26-10-2005. The appellant has not challenged this order before any forum. It is reflected from order dated 29-11-2005 that the objection petition filed by the appellant was dismissed for non-prosecution and thereafter the sale was confirmed and sale certificate was issued in favour of the auction-purchaser. The appellant moved another application for recalling order dated 26-10-2005 which was dismissed by learned Executing Court vide order dated 20-12-2005. Learned Banking Court while dismissing the application observed that the appellant was directed to deposit the amount, as a result of non- compliance of order, the application was dismissed. The appellant neither challenged the order, nor complied with it's terms. Non-compliance was fatal and application was rightly dismissed. The impugned order passed by learned Banking Court is devoid of any illegality or infirmity. The appellant was bound to deposit the amount according to the direction of the Court. The impugned order thus does not call for any B interference.
6. For the foregoing, this appeal is without any merits, hence the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs.