' AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.---This Appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the Order dated 5-4- 2005, whereby the EFA filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. The facts relevant for disposal of this Appeal are that the Respondent-Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs,1,44,35,907.25 along with mark up against the appellants. On 7-2-2000, the suit was decreed in favour of the Respondent-Bank to the extent of Rs,1,41,30,523.25 along with mark up. The Respondent-Bank/decree holder filed Execution Petition on 7-2-2000. The property bearing No,233- R, Phase-II, LCCHS, Lahore Cant. Was put to auction and the Auctioneer was directed to submit auction report on 2-9-2000. The judgment debtors filed Application against the reserve price, which was fixed as Rs,9 million. The said Application was dismissed by the Banking Court on 10-8- 2002, against which the FAO of the appellants was disposed of on 4-9-2002. The appellants filed Objection Petition under section 47 read with Order XXI, Rules 54 and 66, C.P.C. Which was dismissed on 22-7-2003, against which the appellants preferred E.F.A. No,356 of 2003, before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, which was dismissed vide order dated 18-9-2003. Thereafter, the judgment debtors also filed Application for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 7-2-2000, which was dismissed by the Banking Court on 18-12-2003. The Banking Court directed that the auction would proceed as scheduled but confirmed after disposal of the Objection Petition filed by the appellants. The auction report was submitted on 25-2-2004. The suit property was auctioned on 23-2-2004 for a sum of Rs,1,65,00,000 and sale was confirmed. The possession of the suit property is also stated to be delivered to the auction-purchaser.
3. On 22-3-2004 the appellants filed Objection Petition under section 19(7) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (herein after referred to as the Ordinance'), for setting aside the auction, inter alia, on the ground that the auction process was irregular and illegal. This Application was dismissed by the Banking Court by Order 16-10-2004, against which the appellants preferred E.F.A. No,469 of 2004 which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 5- 4-2005. Hence this Appeal with leave of the Court.
4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the learned High Court has overlooked the inherent defect in the auction proceedings, which was violative of provisions of Order XXI, Rule 67(2), C.P.C. According to the learned Counsel, no auction at all was conducted and the report of the Auctioneer was fake and fictitious. He next contended that no bid sheet was prepared by the Auctioneer while conducting the so called auction and in support of his contentions, he has relied upon the cases of Brig. (Retd.) Mazhar-ul-Haq v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. (PLD 1993 Lahore 706) and Messrs A.M. Rice Corporation v. Bank of Punjab (2003 CLD 1783).
5. He next contended that the respondent No,2 was wrongly declared as highest bidder. He further contended that the inherent defect in the procedure adopted by the Banking Court was incurable while accepting the bid of the respondent No,2, therefore, the learned High Court ought to have ordered re-auction of the property in dispute, instead the learned High Court has maintained the order of the Banking Court.
6. As against this, the learned Counsel for the respondent No,2 has contended that the Banking Court issued notices on execution application of the judgment-debtors in terms of section 19(7) of the Ordinance, which mandates the Banking Court to adopt any mode for execution of a decree other than the one provided in the C.P.C. He submitted that even otherwise the objection petition of the appellants, which was filed under section 19(7) of the Ordinance read with all allied provisions of C.P.C. Was also not in conformity with the language of Order XXI, Rules 89 and or 90, C.P.C.
7. He next contended that section 19(7) of the Ordinance provides the procedure for execution of a banking decree in a summary manner and all the required steps contained in the said section were taken note of by the Banking Court while finalizing the auction proceedings. He submitted that the evaluation reports of Unit 3 Consultants and Minhass Associates were submitted by the Bank and according to these reports, the value of the property in dispute as estimated by them was R s.1,15,20,000 and Rs,1,36,00,000 respectively, whereas the highest bid of the respondent No,2 was Rs,1,65,00,000 which was more than the evaluated value. He submitted that the relief sought by the appellants is misconceived and the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent No,1 has adopted the arguments of the learned Counsel for the respondent No,2.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the Record. We have noticed that the bid sheet was prepared by the Auctioneer appointed by the Banking Court, who conducted the auction proceedings and submitted his detailed report. He specifically stated that the appellants were not present but his persons were available at the site at the time of the auction. The Report further reflects that proper steps were taken for conducting the auction proceedings and the highest bid of Rs,1,65,00,000 was accepted; whereas the appellants had themselves showed the value of the property in dispute as Rs, 1,20, 00 , 000 .
10. The appellants have filed objection petition apparently on the ground that auction proceedings were irregular and the Banking Court has failed to follow the procedure provided under Order XXI, C.P.C. The appellants themselves moved the Banking Court under section 19(7) of the Ordinance and have not made an application under Order XXI, Rule 89 or 90, C.P.C. Even if the objection petition of the appellants is treated as an Application under Order XXI, Rule 89 or 90, C.P.C., then the said Rules mandate that the objector should deposit the amounts mentioned therein along with the application. In absence of the deposit, as mandated by the Rules, the application and or objections cannot be entertained by a Banking Court. In the case in hand, the appellants have not deposited any of the amounts required under the aforesaid Rules, therefore, the objections were rightly rejected by the Banking Court.
11. Section 19(2) of the Ordinance authorizes the Banking Court to adopt summary procedure provided under section 19(7)(a), (b) and (c) which also exclude application of the provisions of Civil Procedure Code for satisfying a decree in execution proceedings. The aforesaid provisions of section 19 contain inbuilt mechanism of execution proceedings. In the case in hand, the Banking Court issued notices in terms of section 19(7) of the Ordinance in the execution proceedings and thereafter it followed the inbuilt mechanism provided therein, which is summary in nature. In such like situation, the objections of the appellants that the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 66 or any other Rule under Order XXI of the C.P.C. Have not been followed, will be of no consequence in terms of the language of section 19 of the Ordinance.
12. The Ordinance is a special law and section 19(7) contains a non obstante clause, excluding the application of Civil Procedure Code or any other law for the time being in force, therefore, once the Banking Court adopts summary procedure provided under section 19 of the Ordinance, it is not bound to follow the procedure provided under Order XXI in execution proceedings and the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is without force.
13. We, for the aforesaid reasons, are of the considered view that no inherent defect has been found in the procedure adopted by the Banking Court in terms of section 19(7) of the Ordinance, under which the auction was conducted and the respondent No, 2 was rightly declared the highest bidder, who deposited the auction amount within the stipulated time besides during pendency of the proceedings, possession of the property in dispute has already been delivered to the respondent No,2.
14. For what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs throughout.