' IJAZ AHMAD, J.---The respondent-bank instituted a suit for recovery of the financial facility advanced to the appellant. An ex parte decree dated 10-8-2009 was passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Appellant made an application for setting aside the ex parte decree contending that he had not been properly served. Reply was sought. It was submitted. Meanwhile converting the suit into execution proceedings the learned Banking Court fixed the reserve price of the mortgaged property, issued the schedule for auction of the property and adjourned the matter to 17-9-2011 for submitting the report of the auctioneer. For the day set for reporting the result of the auction, the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was also adjourned vide order dated 8-7-2011 which is being impugned through this appeal.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that announcing a schedule and setting a date for report regarding the auction proceedings before deciding the application for setting aside ex parte proceedings will be tantamount to put the cart before the horse and that the court should have decided the application first either way.
3. This appeal is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent bank. It is contended that this appeal is not proceedable. It is barred by law of limitation. The impugned order having been passed on 8-7-2011 the instant appeal should have' been preferred within 30 days. This appeal preferred on 12-9-2011 is hopelessly time barred even if requisite time spent in obtaining the certified copies of the order is excluded. Further that the law postulates that after passing of the decree the plaint is converted into execution proceedings therefore; the execution proceedings and the application could run simultaneously. Further contends that the appellant should have resisted the execution proceedings at its very initiation and should have not waited for the day when the property was put to auction and schedule was announced.
MH/F-37/L .