This appeal is filed under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances)
Ordinance, 2001 (the Ordinance) against order dated 18.06.2014 passed by the learned Banking Court, Multan whereby application filed by the appellant challenging the reserve price was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the suit filed by the respondent bank against the appellant was decreed on 19.12.2013. The said suit after the decree was converted into execution petition in terms of section 19 of the Ordinance. The subject matter of the execution was two properties belonging to Mian Amjad Ali/judgment debtor No,2. Through the objection petition filed by Mian Amjad Ali/judgment debtor No,2, the reserve price proposed by the decree holder bank was challenged by relying upon the evaluation report prepared by Mughal Associates. In respect of the properties including a house and shops bearing Nos.382-A and 382- B situated in Shams Abad Multan, the value assessed by Mughal Associates was Rs,3,716,100/- as against the value assessed by decree holder bank which was Rs,1,603,100/- The learned Banking Court proposed Rs,2,500,000/- as the reserve ,price of the said property. In regard to agricultural land 804 Kanals and 6 marla situated at mouza Manikwali, Jalalpur Pirwala, the value assessed by Mughal Associates was Rs,60,322,500/- whereas the value assessed by decree older bank was Rs,25,300,200/- The banking Court fixed the reserve price at Rs,35,000,000/-, The solitary objection taken by learned counsel for the appellant that no particular order was passed on the objection petition. This assertion is not correct as the learned Banking Court through order dated 18.06.2014 has determined the reserve price of the properties belonging to judgment debtor No,2. The learned counsel for the respondent bank has placed on record the auction report held subsequent to the passing of order dated 18.06.2014 which shows that no bidder turned up for participating in the auction of the aforementioned two properties even at the aforementioned reserve price fixed by the learned Banking Court. According to the said report the reserve price for the house/shops was on the higher side.
The objection petition filed by the appellant for enhancing the reserve price of the properties was rightly dismissed by the learned Banking Court. The reserve price of she properties fixed by the Banking Court was tested in he auction and it failed to fetch any buyer. There is, therefore, no force in the argument of the appellant's learned counsel that the reserve price is on the lower side. In the result this, appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed.