C.M. No,64-B OF 2005 ' IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner prays that the sale certificate may be allowed to be rectified/corrected and typographical mistake that has changed the character of the relief may be amended accordingly.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is clearly stated in the Court Auctioneer report that only the lease hold rights shall be transferred to the highest bidder and not the actual proprietary rights and this means that property shall be reverted to its original owner after the expiry of the remaining period of the lease but inadvertently the sale rights were transferred to the purchaser; that it is only a clerical mistake that the word "sale" was written instead of the word "lease" and that this Court has wide power under section 152, C.P.C., to correct mistake in the sale certificate which was issued to the highest bidder/respondent. Reliance in this respect is placed upon Syed Saadi Jafri Zainabi v. Land Acquisition Collector and Assistant Commissioner PLD 1992 SC 472 and Muhammad Shahzad v. Khairati Khan and others 1989 SCM R 189.
3. On the other hand, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondent/auction-purchaser that this petition is not .Maintainable as execution application is pending before the Banking Court at Faisalabad, therefore, the petition being filed before a wrong forum is liable to be dismissed because this Court having become functus officio has no jurisdiction to hear this case. Further contended that section 152, C.P.C. Is not applicable to the banking matters. Reliance in this respect is placed upon Zari Tariqiati Bank Ltd. Through Branch Manager v. Hassan Aftab Fatiana 2009 CLD 36 and Bank Alfalah Ltd. v. Messrs Bilal Spinning Mills Ltd. 2005 CLD 206. It is also contended that the petitioner Hudabiya Textile Mills filed an application seeking annulment of confirmation of the auction and the same was accepted by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 6-5-1986 and the same order was challenged by the respondent auction-purchaser in appeal before the Division Bench of this Court and the appeal was allowed and the auction in favour of the respondent auction-purchaser was confirmed vide order dated 13-4-1987, which was challenged by the petitioner in appeal before Honourable Supreme Court and the appeal was dismissed on 12- 8-1987 and against the said order, two review petitions were filed by the petitioner but the same were also dismissed vide order dated 18-4-1990 and, therefore, the matter had attained finality and the same cannot be reopened after 21/22 years. Further contended that this petition is barred by the principle of res judicata and also amounts to contempt of Superior Courts as the question already determined upto the stage of Honourable Supreme Court. It is also contended that there is no mistake in the sale certificate nor any correction is called for as the property sold in auction belonged to the petitioner, as is evident from the order dated 13-4-1987 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, wherein it was held that "no objection regarding the ownership of the property was taken either during are trial of the suit or before the executing Court."
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Properties of the petitioner Hudabiya Textile Mills were auctioned on 15th and 16th September, 1985. The petitioner Hudabiya Textile Mills filed an application seeking annulment of confirmation of the auction and the same was accepted by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 6-5-1986 and-the same order was challenged by the respondent auction-purchaser in appeal before the Division Bench of this Court and the appeal was allowed and the auction in favour of the respondent auction-purchaser was confirmed vide order dated 13-4-1987, which was challenged by the petitioner in appeal before Honourable Supreme Court and the appeal was dismissed on 12- 8-1987 and against the said order, two review petitions were filed by the petitioner but the same were also dismissed vide order dated 18-4-1990 and, therefore, the matter had attained finality and the same cannot be reopened after 21/22 years. There is no mistake in the sale certificate nor any correction is called for as the property sold in auction belonged to the petitioner, as is evident from the order dated 13-4-1987 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, wherein it was held that "no objection regarding the ownership of the property was taken either during the trial of the suit or before the executing Court". Even otherwise, this petition is not maintainable because execution application was pending before the Banking Court at Faisalabad, as such, this Court has become functus officio and has no jurisdiction in the matter.
6. In view of the above circumstances, this petition is dismissed.