1. ANWAR HUSSAIN, J---Through this Petition, the Petitioner has prayed for an order restraining the Banking Court from dispossessing the Petitioner. From the House No, E-9, Street No, 26, Model Colony, Karachi, by staying the Auction Proceedings in Execution No, 20/2015, till final disposal of this Petition. Additionally, to dismiss the Decree-Holder's Application for Possession pending in Banking Court, and set aside the Final Order passed by the Banking Court in Suit No, 291/2012.
2. ' The case of the Petitioner, as claimed by her, is that she entered into a sale transaction with,the respondents No, 2 & 3 for the purchase of subject property for a total price of Rs, 32,00,000/- out of which she paid Rs, 20,00,000/- leaving the balance of R. 12,00,000/-. It is the case of the petitioner that upon payment of Rs, 20,00,000/- possession of the subject property was handed over to the petitioner by the respondents No, 2 & 3 in terms of the Sale Agreement dated 29.12.2012. Thereafter, petitioner came to know that the said property is mortgaged with the Bank/respondent No, 1, when notice of Execution No, 20/2015 in Suit No, 291/2012, was pasted at the outer door of the said property. The petitioner consequently moved an application for the postponement of the 'auction proceedings, before the respondent No, 4, which application was dismissed vide order dated 6.11.2015, on the ground that the sale transaction of the said property has no worth in the eyes of law, as the said property was already under the charge with the Bank/respondent No, 1, and necessary auction proceedings have been effected and auction was already scheduled, to be conducted. The respondents had filed First Appeal No, -100/2015 in . This Court, which ultimately has been dismissed.
3. ' The record reflect that the Respondent No, 1/Bank thereafter filed an Application u/s. 16(3)(b) r/w Section 19(6) of F.I.O. (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, r/w Section 151, CPC, seeking possession of the said Mortgaged Property with the assistance -of the Police and Nazir of the Banking Court, as the Petitioner has threatened not to handover the possession of the same even if it is auctioned. Notice on such application was issued to Respondent No 2, but since the Petitioner was found in possession and she refused to receive the notice, consequently the same was pasted at the outer door. However, in response to such notice, Judgment. Debtor/Respondent No, 2, appeared in Court and gave No Objection for the Auction and handing over of possession to the Banking Court. Thereafter, it was brought on record that an Appeal was filed by the Petitioner which was pending, but there is no stay order, consequently, the Banking Court vide Order dated 17.11.2015, ordered to initiate proceedings for Re-auction and to decide the said Application at least after fifteen days before the day of Auction. Ultimately, again the Banking Court directed its Nazir to issue necessary notices and arrange for the Auction Proceedings of the said Property vide Order dated 13.12.2015.
4. To our mind, the petitioner, has no locus-standi to resist the sale which is being taken place on consequent to a valid judgment and decree. The plea that she has purchased the property from the mortgagor without notice cannot defeat the claim of mortgagee as the principles of care and caution were flouted, therefore, we do not find the petitioner entitled to any concession. The petitioner has repeatedly, submitted that if sufficient time is granted to her she would be in a position to liquidate the liability of the Financial Institution and would redeem the mortgage.
5. However, such concession can only be obtained from the mortgagee/decree-holder. In the circumstances, we find this petition devoid of merit and therefore is dismissed in limine.
6. Constitutional in limine.