'Through this petition, order dated 6.6.2012 passed by Respondent No, 1 Judge Banking Court No, II, Lahore has been challenged by the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that a suit was filed by Respondent. 2, Trust Leasing and Investment Bank Limited, against the petitioner and two others. An application for leave to appear and defend was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed on 29.7.2008 by Respondent No, 1, Judge Banking Court No, II, Lahore for non-prosecution as well as for being barred by time. The suit was ultimately decreed on 29.7.2008. Respondent No, 1 proceeded to execute the judgment and decree dated 29.7.2008. On 14.6.2010 an application under Order I Rule 10, CPC was filed by Respondent No, 3, Allah Ditta for becoming party in the execution proceedings. In the said application, Respondent No, 3 claimed that he had entered into an agreement with the petitioner for the sale of 02 marlas property subject of the auction proceedings before the Court. He prayed for stay of the proceedings. Respondent No, 3 claimed that an agreement to sell was entered into between him and the petitioner regarding the property measuring 02 marlas comprised in Khewat No, 3/4, Khatoni No, 7, Khasra No, 11/6/2 measuring 01-Kanal and 02-Marlas, out of which share measuring 02 marlas situated at Jassokey Gurditta, Tehsil Depalpur, District Okara. Respondent No, 1 vide the impugned order dated 6.6.2012 decided the application of Respondent No, 3 by validating the transaction between the petitioner and Respondent No,
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Respondent No, 1 had no jurisdiction to validate the transaction between the petitioner and Respondent No, 3, Allah Ditta regarding the property exclusively owned by the petitioner.
Learned counsel further argued that mere assertion of a right on the basis of an agreement to sell does not create substantive rights in the property.
3. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, it is seen that impugned ' order dated 6.6.2012 passed by Respondent No, 1 is contrary to the law. Respondent No, 1 does not have jurisdiction under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 to decide upon title issues between parties furthermore irrespective of any agreement to sell, Respondent No, 1 was obligated to auction the property which was mortgaged by the judgment debtors to satisfy the decree dated 29.7.2008. Therefore the impugned order dated 6.6.2012 passed by Respondent No, 1 is set aside. The application under Order I Rule 10, CPC shall be deemed pending before Respondent No, 1, Judge Banking Court No, II, Lahore who shall pass a fresh order on the application by Respondent No, 3, in accordance with law, after hearing all the necessary parties within a period of three months from the receipt of certified copy of this order.
4. Disposed of accordingly.
(R.A.)