GULZAR AHMED, J.---The facts, as appear from the record show that the petitioner Mujahid Kareem was a customer within the meaning of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances)
Ordinance, 2001 (the Ordinance) and stood as a Guarantor for the advance made by respondent No.1 to Abid Kareem, his brother. The suit was contested and ultimately it was decreed exparte on 11.10.2001. No appeal was filed nor any application before the Banking Court for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree was filed. Execution was filed by respondent No.1 and it appears that during the execution proceedings Abid Kareem expired. His legal heirs namely petitioners No.2 and 3 were impleaded as judgment debtors and the matter was proceeded accordingly. The Court passed order for auction of mortgaged property. Such auction was made and the auction price was paid whereafter on 05.12.2008 the Banking Court issued sale certificate. The auction property was also registered in favour of auction purchaser, who was also given its possession. Petitioner No.1 filed an application before Banking Court under section 19(7) of the Ordinance read with Order XXI, Rules 58 and 89, C.P.C. This application was dismissed vide order dated 03.03:2010 by the learned Judge Banking Court against which petitioner filed FAO No.174 of 2010 in the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan. By the impugned order dated 09.03.2015 the said appeal has been' dismissed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court.
2. Learned ASC for the petitioners has contended that petitioner No.1 was living abroad and had no knowledge about the filing of suit and the execution proceedings, therefore, the auction of the mortgaged property was not legally justifiable. The learned ASC further contended that he has deposited the decretal amount with the Banking Court, therefore, the sale of mortgaged property is liable to be cancelled. He further contended that the Borrower Abid Kareem, the petitioner's brother, died during the pendency of the execution petition and his legal heirs were not joined as judgment debtors.
3. We have considered the submissions of the learned ASC for the petitioners and have gone through the record. Admittedly, the loan was given by respondent No.1 to the petitioners in the year 1999 and on failure of the petitioners in repaying the same, respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery in the Banking Court, which was not defended and ultimately ex-parte decree was passed, which was never challenged by A anyone in any proceedings. The petitioners took no steps for liquidating the decretal amount to respondent No.1 nor did they deposit the same in the Banking Court within the time provided by the law. Obviously in such circumstance, respondent No.1 has to auction the mortgaged property for recovery of its dues under the decree. The learned ASC has pointed out that the order for auctioning the mortgaged property was passed by the Banking Court on 07.07.2004 which too apparently was not challenged rather in the year 2009 the petitioners filed the above application. The decree having not been challenged nor the order dated 07.07.2004 apparently show that the petitioners were having the knowledge of filing of the suit, execution proceedings and sale of mortgaged property but took no steps for stopping the auction of the mortgaged property rather respondent No.5 namely Shahid Kareem, brother of petitioner No.1, has filed an objection in the Banking Court against auction of mortgaged property, which objection was dismissed by the Banking Court on 29.11.2008. The petitioners, therefore, cannot be said to have no knowledge of the auction of mortgaged property. Even the Banking Court in its order 'dated 03.03.2010 has specifically noted that notices under Order XXI, Rule 66, C.P.C. were issued to the judgment debtors. The deposit of decretal amount by the petitioners in the year 2009, after the mortgaged property has been auctioned and such auction having been confirmed registered and possession delivered, is of no help for that the only purpose of the petitioners seems to linger on the matter and delay the recovery of the bank dues for culmination of the proceedings. The decree was passed in the year 2001 and it is only in the year 2009 that the petitioners realized and filed application from stopping the auction. No reason has been assigned as to why so much time has been allowed by the petitioners to go by without initiating any proceedings by him. The legal heirs of Abid Kareem deceased were joined as judgment debtors in the execution proceedings inasmuch as they were issued notices by the executing Court, as noted by the Banking Court, in its order dated 03.03.2010 the objection of the petitioners apparently is not supported by the record.
We find no merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave refused.