' SHAHID KARIM, J.---This is an appeal against the order dated 26.11.2016 passed by the learned Banking Court Gujranwala. By the impugned order the objection petition filed by the appellant under section 19(7) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 ('Ordinance') was dismissed.
2. Mr. Zeeshan Nadeem, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the decree holder bank and has been heard.
3. Upon a reading of the impugned order it is apparent that the Banking Court has clearly misconstrued the law relating to an objection petition regarding auction of the property. The primary basis on which the objection petition was filed was that the place of auction was one of the branches of the decree holder bank. This was dealt with in a casual manner by the Banking Court although this was a substantial objection taken by the judgment debtor/appellant. Secondly, the Banking Court required the judgment debtor to deposit 1/3rd of the amount by way of security for entertaining the application. This once again was a fallacy on the part of the Banking Court.
There is no requirement in law for deposit of 1/3rd of the decretal amount has been prescribed. The application under section 19 of the Ordinance does not lay down any such condition as also this was not objection against safe of the property which was conducted as a result of auction and therefore the requirement of deposit of 1/3rd was not attracted. On both these grounds this appeal is accepted. The Banking Court shall decide the objection petition of the appellant afresh in accordance with law and within a period of one month from receipt of this order.