' SHEZADA MAZHAR, J.---The present Execution First Appeal has been filed against the order dated 25-9-2013 as well as auction proceedings held on 8-7-2013.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of the present Execution First Appeal against the impugned orders are that respondent No.1/bank filed a suit for recovery, which was decreed vide judgment, and decree dated 27-8-2008, which was later on converted into execution. Learned Judge Banking Court fixed the reserve price of the mortgaged property as Rs.1,65,00,000 and appointed the court auctioneer for auction of the mortgaged property but the court auctioneer submitted report on 17- 5-2012 requesting for reduction in the reserve price of the mortgaged property. On 21-5-2013 counsel for respondents Nos.2 to 4 made statement in Court to reduce the reserve price and the Banking Court reduced the same to Rs.1,11,76.000, thereafter court auctioneer auctioned the property on 8-7-2013 whereby respondent No.5 purchased the same for an amount of Rs.1,46,55,000. When appellant came to know about the execution of the mortgaged property, filed objection petition on 17-7-2013 under section 19(7) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 on the ground that Banking Court has no power to review its own judgment in view of section 27 of the said ordinance. The objection petition was dismissed by the Banking Court on 25-9-2013, hence, the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that while passing the impugned order, learned Banking Court has ignored the grounds mentioned in the objection petition. Submits that the impugned order is result of fraud and valuable property of the appellant has been sold away at throw away price as the present value of the mortgaged property is about Rs.35,00,00,000. Submits that after submission of report by the Court auctioneer no notice for reduction of reserve price has been issued to the appellant, therefore, impugned. Order is ex parte order, which is liable to be set aside. Further submits that on 21-5-2013 reserve price was reduced on the statement of counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 whereas counsel for appellant was Manzoor ul Haq. Advocate who has not made any statement with regard to the reduction in the reserve price.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that reduction in reserve price is not a review order and the same does not fall within the scope of section 27 of the F.I.O., 2001. In this regard relies upon Mst. Shakila Riaz v. Judge Banking Court (2007 CLD 349). Submits that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that after passing the judgment and decree against the appellant and others, they never appeared before the learned Judge Banking Court whereas the suit was converted into execution under section 19(1) of the F.I.O., 2001. The appellant himself chooses not to appear before the court despite issuance of notice under Order XXI Rule 66. Even after first attempt for sale of the mortgaged property, the appellant did not bother to appear before the Court. Perusal of the objection petition also reveals that although the appellant claimed that he has not been served, however the objection petition reveals that a Lawyer namely Shahid Mumtaz was appearing on behalf of the appellant. The appellant have admitted that said lawyer moved application on their behalf therefore; the appellant cannot claim that proceedings were ex parte. The appellant changed his counsel and appointed Ch. Manzoor ul Haq, Advocate, therefore, the claim of the appellant that the reduction in the reserve price of the mortgaged property has been made without notice is misconceived and is of no consideration. Record further reveals that the reserve price was fixed by the court as Rs. 1,65,00,000, which was never objected by the appellant, however on application by the court auctioneer, the amount of reserve price was reduced from 1,11,76,000, which was also not challenged and which was made on the basis of statement made by the learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 to 4. Admittedly, the said lawyer was respenting the judgment debtors. The claim of the appellant that he has appointed another counsel is not supported by record as appellant has never placed on record any order of the Court showing recall of earlier power of attorney of Shahid Mumtaz Paracha, Advocate. This objection of the appellant seems to be an afterthought, which is of no avail. Learned Banking court rightly dismissed the application. Even otherwise, in view of the law laid down by this Court Mst. Shakila Riaz v. Judge Banking Court (2003 CLD 349) wherein it has been held as under:-- ' Main purpose for the establishment of Banking Courts is for the expeditious disposal of the cases relating to the recovery of bank dues. The Banking Courts cannot be handicapped by some unscrupulous customers/judgment-debtors under the threat of section 27 of the said Act. If it be held that the Banking Court cannot even recall such minor and harmless orders, then I am afraid the Banking Courts cannot function for all practical purposes and will fell prey in the hands of the defendants/judgment-debtors, who spare no opportunity to prolong the proceedings, in the recovery suit/execution. In case, such orders are not allowed to be recalled by the Banking Court under the garb of section 27 of Act XV of 1997, I am afraid it will amount setting at naught the very provisions of the Act and the purpose for the establishment of the Banking Courts. The court is to examine the facts and circumstances of each and every case and then to decide on its merits, as to whether the case falls within the scope of "reviewing" or "recalling" of the order.
' In the present case, the impugned order of reduction of reserve price does not fall within the scope of reviewing or recalling the order and the same has not effected the right of any party concerned.
8. Hence, the instant E.F.A. Having no force stands dismissed.