' MUHAMMAD AZIM KHAN AFRIDI, J.---This judgment is aimed at the disposal of E.F.A. No,8 of 2011 and E.F.A. No,9 of 2011 as identical factual and legal controversy is involved in both the appeals and between the same parties.
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of both the appeals are that the respondent bank instituted a suit for recovery of Rs,4,06,64,810 against the appellants before the learned Judge Banking Court, Rawalpindi. The appellants, on appearance filed petition for leave to defend the suit, however, the learned Judge Banking Court, after declining leave prayed for, decreed the suit vide judgment dated 4th March, 2010. That subsequent thereto, the respondent bank filed an application dated 29-4-2010 for permission of the Court to sell the mortgage property privately which application was accepted vide order dated 18th May, 2010. That in the process seal bids were invited through publication in daily "DAWN" dated 18th May, 2010 and reserve price of the mortgaged property was fixed Rs,56 million. That the said order was impugned before Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench which was accepted and the impugned order was set aside on the statement of the respondent bank to the effect that the mortgaged property would not be sold through private sale and that the same would be auctioned in accordance with the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. That thereafter, learned Judge Banking Court, Rawalpindi fixed the reserve price of the said property as Rs,4,40,00,000 which order has been challenged in E.F.A. No,8 of 2011.
3. The appellants, thereafter, submitted petition asserting therein that the Court auctioneer has initiated auction proceedings without approval of the schedule of auction and as such, the proceedings initiated are nullity. The reserve price fixed by the Court vide order dated 4-1-2011 was also assailed before the learned Judge Banking Court and the learned Judge Banking vide order dated 24-3-2011 decared the auction proceedings initiated by the court auctioneer as of no legal effect as the same were conducted without approval of schedule of auction from the Court while the assertion about the valuation of the reserve price was found in accordance with the prescribed procedure and law and petition of the appellant in respect of annulment of the reserve price was dismissed vide order dated 24-3-2011 which order has been impugned in E.F.A. No,9 of 2011.
4. Learned counsel for appellants has argued that the procedures adopted by and on behalf of the respondent bank are novel to the procedure prescribed by law. That Order XXI, Rule 66 of C.P.C.
Prescribed procedure for sale of property by public auction in execution of a decree which was not adopted. That the impugned judgment and orders are appealable as the procedure for auction was governed by the provisions of Civil Procedure Code. That the respondent bank is neither authorized nor, justified to seek auction of the property of the judgment debtor at a throw away price. He further argued that for appreciation of the contentions of the appellants original record of the case may also be requisitioned and perused.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent bank has argued that the impugned judgments and orders are not appealable. That the appellants intend to delay the process of auction and making efforts to frustrate the very object of the special law i,e, Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances)
Ordinance, 2001 hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, 2001. That this Court vide order dated 8- 2-2012 facilitated the appellants to search for perspective purchaser and come up with a proposal but in spite of lapse of more than three months the appellants have failed to manage or trace out any single purchaser ready to purchase the property at price acceptable to the appellants. That the request of the learned counsel for the appellants for requisitioning of original record is yet another attempt to delay the process and prolong the agonies of the respondent bank.
6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. We have also anxiously considered the issue of maintainability of appeals.
7. Section 104 and Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure specify the orders of the Court from which appeal lies. Fixation of reserve price, in pursuance of auction proceedings, is neither stated nor mentioned as an appealable order under the provisions of Civil Procedure Code. Moreover according to section 4 of the Ordinance, 2001 in case of inconsistency between the provisions of the Ordinance, 2001 and any other law for the time being in force, the provisions of the Ordinance 2001 would be having overriding effects. According to section 22 subsection (1) of the Ordinance, 2001 only a judgment, decree, sentence or final order passed by a Banking Court would be appealable before the high Court. Subsection (6) of section 22 of the Ordinance bars appeal, review or revision against an order accepting or rejecting an application for leave to defend, or any interlocutory order of the Banking Court, an order passed under subsection (11) of section 15 or subsection (7) of section 19 of the said Ordinance, 2011. Orders impugned herein are neither final orders within the meaning of section 22, subsection (1) of the Ordinance, 2001 nor the same can be termed or categorized as interlocutory orders aimed at disposal of the entire case and as such we are neither convinced nor have found the same as appealable orders and would, therefore, entertain no doubt in holding the impugned orders as non-appealable.
8. It is noteworthy that the -interim order of reserve price was challenged in appeal before this Court. The appellants in addition to filing of appeal also preferred an application for review of the impugned order dated 4-1-2011 which petition was dismissed vide order dated 24-3-2011 which was also challenged before this Court in a separate appeal bearing No,E.F.A. No,9 of 2011. This Court, on the request of learned counsel for the appellants facilitated the appellants to search for perspective purchaser and the appellants, in spite of the said facilitating order, failed to take a single step in that direction which act of appellants is indicative of mala fide intentions of the appellants aimed at delaying the auction proceedings and frustrating the intent and object of law requiring expeditious actions.
9. Since the appeals against interim orders are not competent and, furthermore, review was also preferred against the said interim order and moreover the appellants failed to take a single step for searching the perspective purchaser of the mortgaged property, as such, we hold that the appeals are neither competent nor entertainable and aimed at delaying and frustrating the process of auction. We would, therefore, dismiss the same with costs.