Pakistan Case Law← Search
2017 CLD 766

Ch. MAQBOOL AHMAD SAHOOKAR vs Messrs NIB BANK and others

Citation2017 CLD 766
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.E.F.A. No,1073 of 2016
Date2016-12-07
Judge(s)Shahid Karim, Jawad Hassan
ResultOrder accordingly

ORDER

' This is an appeal under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 against the order dated 22.11.2016 passed by Banking Court-II, Lahore, by which the application of the appellant under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the C.P.C. was dismissed. The application was for setting-aside of the auction proceedings held on 25.04.2016.

2. The primary contention of the learned counsel is that pursuant to passing of the impugned order, the Banking Court has confirmed auction proceedings and the sale of the property in favour, of Ch. Muhammad Usman, the successful auction purchaser. The proceedings have now been adjourned for filing of the draft of the sale certificate for the purposes of issuing the final sale certificate to the auction purchaser. This, according to the learned counsel, runs counter to the order dated 25.04.2016 passed by the Banking Court, by which the proceedings on an application made by appellant under section 47 read with Order XXI, Rules 46 and 99, C.P.C. was adjourned to be decided at a later stage. While adjourning the proceedings, it was directed by the Banking Court that the auction shall continue, however, the confirmation of sale shall be subject to the decision of the application filed under section 47 of the C.P.C. by the appellant.

3. Upon a perusal of the two orders referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is clear that the Banking Court had made the confirmation of sale subject to the decision of the application under section 47, Ct P.C. This intent of the Banking Court seems to be negated by the impugned order dated 22.11.2016. However, the appellant has not A raised any substantial ground to attack the impugned order passed on 22.11.2016 apart from the ground that the issuance of the sale certificate cannot be undertaken by the Banking Court until the application under section 47, C.P.C. is decided. This ground hardly gives the cause to the appellant to have the impugned order dated 22.11.2016 set aside.

4. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed. However, the Banking Court is directed to decide the application of the appellant under section '47 of the C.P.C. as encapsulated in the order of the Banking Court of 25.04.2016 and thereafter to proceed to issue the sale certificate to the auction purchaser. The said application shall be decided within a period of one month from the receipt of the order of this Court.

For educational and research use only β€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerΒ·PrivacyΒ·TermsΒ·Search