' Khalid Mahmood Malik, J.--This first Appeal under Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 is directed against the Order dated 22.4.2015, passed by Judge Banking Court No. 1, Multan, whereby he dismissed the application filed by appellant/auction purchaser under Section 19(7) Proviso 1' of the Financial Institutions (recovery of Finances)
Ordinance, 2001 for awarding of compensation on auction amount Rs. 50,50,000/- deposited by appellant being successful bidder as sale price of mortgaged property.
2.Precisely facts of the case are that respondent (bank) being, decree-holder in order to recover rectal amount put the mortgaged property in auction on 02.07.2008. The appellant participated in auction bid and being highest bidder of Rs. 50,50,000/-, the auction of the mortgaged property was confirmed by the Banking Court, Multan, M/S Multan Textile Allied. Industries (Pvt.) limited, and others (judgment Debtors/Respondents No. 2 to 7) filed an appeal, which was accepted by this Court and case was remanded back to the Banking Court for its fresh decision; that Banking Court has dismissed the objection petition vide order dated 08.08.2012 and once again FAO No. 131/2012 was filed by' the judgment debtor, which was allowed on 05.11.2012. In pursuance to the said order, Banking Court framed issues, recorded evidence of parties and then again dismissed objection petition. The judgment debtors again preferred FAO No. 110/2013 before this Court against the order dated 07.05.2013, which was accepted vide judgment dated 29.05.2014 and the order dated 07.05.2013 was set aside. Being aggrieved, Respondent No. 1 (bank) filed CPSLA before the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, which is still sub judice. The appellant has filed Civil Miscellaneous No. 2531/C of 2014 in FAO No. 110/2013 with the prayer that Bank may kindly be directed to return the amount of the appellant deposited by him along-with 20% as provided under Section 19(7) Proviso (i) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, which was adjourned vide order dated 28.01.2015 as the learned counsel for appellant seeks time to file application before the learned Banking Court for redressal of his grievances voiced in the instant application. In consequence, the appellant moved an application for redress of his grievance, which was contested by respondent (bank) and learned Banking Court dismissed the application of petitioner vide impugned order dated 22.04.2015. The F.A.O No. 110/2013 has been decided vide judgment dated 29.5.2014 therefore, CM No. 2531/2014 filed by appellant has become infrastructure.
3. After having heard learned counsel for parties and survey of record, we observed that there is no controversy between the parties on the following facts:--
(i) Earlier suit for recovery of Rs. 56,68,890.45/- instituted by respondent(bank) was decreed against the judgment debtors MIS Multan Textile Allied Industries (Pvt) Limited and others.
(ii) In order to recover decretal amount, mortgaged property of judgment debtors was put to auction on 02.07.2008.
(iii) The appellant participated in auction bid and being highest bidder of Rs. 50,50,000/-, the auction of mortgaged property was confirmed by the Banking Court, Multan.
(iv) FAO No. 110/2013 filed against order dated 07.05.2013 passed by learned Banking Court No. 1, Multan whereby objection petition filed by judgment debtors (respondents) has been dismissed, was accepted vide judgment dated 29.5.2014.
(v) The Respondent No. 1/decree-holder (bank) has challenged the judgment dated 29.5.2014 before Apex Supreme Court of Pakistan, which is still pending.
4.On a Court question, learned counsel for decree-holder (bank) has admitted that appellant has deposited Rs. 50,50,000/- being highest bidder in the bank. Learned Banking Court has dismissed the afore-mentioned application of appellant main& on the grounds that:-- "Objection petition filed by judgment debtors was accepted by this Court and no such order was passed in favour of petitioner/auction purchaser; petitioner/auction purchaser has filed similar application in this Court, which is still pending adjudication over there. Therefore, Court has got no jurisdiction to pass any order on this application".
6. Learned counsel for respondent (bank) opposed this application merely on the ground that Bank has challenged the judgment dated 29.5.2014 before the Apex Supreme Court of Pakistan. No doubt CPSLA against judgment dated 29.5.2014 is sub judice before august Supreme Court of Pakistan but mere filing of CPSLA does not bar the appellant from claiming repayment of amount in question allegedly deposited by the appellant in auction proceedings particularly when the objection petition of the judgment debtors was accepted and on Court questions, representative of bank and learned counsel for respondent (bank) admitted that the appellant has deposited amount with the bank and no stay order was passed by the Apex. Supreme Court of Pakistan with regard to the auction amount i.e. Rs. 50,50,000/- deposited by the appellant/auction purchaser. Learned Banking Court has not appreciated the facts'-of the case in its true perspective as civil miscellaneous filed by petitioner in FAO No. 110/2013 has become infructuous. Admittedly, appellant/auction purchaser of the mortgaged property has deposited Rs. 50,50,000/-, which was being used by respondent(bank) since 2008. Appellant has participated in auction proceedings in good faith and he remained deprived of the fruit of said amount till today. The respondent (bank) opposing his application throughout and the act of the bank does not appear to have acted in good faith in the matter in hand.
7. In view of above discussed facts, we allowed instant appeal by setting aside order dated 22.4.2015 and application filed by appellant is accepted by holding that appellant is entitled to auction amount with penalty @ 10% per annum on the amount of auction withheld by bank.