AYESHA A. MALIK, J. --- This is Execution First Appeal against order dated 10.8.2011 passed by the Judge Banking Court No, IV, Lahore.
2. The facts of the case are that Respondent No,1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs, 1,44,96,787/- against the Appellant. The Appellant filed PLA challenging the genuineness of the Bank's claim as also the maintainability of the suit. The said PLA was accepted by the learned Judge Banking Court vide order dated 4.5.2009 subject to deposit of the default amount as per scheduled instalments in the Court. The Appellant did not deposit the amounts in Court, hence the PLA was dismissed by the Court vide order dated 18.8.2009 Ultimately the suit of the Respondent Bank was decreed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 12.10.2009 in the amount of Rs, 1,27,53,519/- with costs of funds. The judgment and decree dated 12.10.2009 stood converted into execution petition by operation of law and the executing Court ordered to sell the Appellant's mortgaged property that is house measuring 01 Kanal bearing Khasra No, 326, Khatpni No, 232, Khewat No, 180 situated at Aalam Park, Hadbast Mauza, Khana Singh Wala, Tehsil Cantt., District Lahore through public auction and the property of the Appellant was auctioned on 3.2.2011. Sale certificate was issued on 7.3.2011.
The Appellant filed an objection petition before the executing Court on 6.5.2011 for setting aside the auction/sale of Appellant's property and sale certificate issued on 7.3.2011. The said petition was dismissed by the learned executing Court vide order dated 10.8.2011 with cost of Rs, 25,000/- being barred by time. Hence this appeal.
3. Although learned counsel for the Appellant has sent a written request for adjournment but learned counsel for the Respondents have pressed for hearing of the appeal as it is an old one appeal pending since 2011. Hence we decided to proceed on the basis of available record.
4. It is stated in the appeal that the Court auctioneer sold the property at a throw-away price of Rs, 7,100,000/- while the value of the property which is near to Doctors Hospital, Lahore is at least Rs, 20 Million. Further stated that the Appellant remained outside of Lahore in connection with his duties, so he could not join the proceedings and even the decree was passed against his back, as no process or notice was ever received or served on the Appellant and he was kept in the dark.
5. Learned counsel for the Respondent Bank argued that the application filed by the Appellant was barred by time in terms of Article 16 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and, the Appellant came to the Court after the sale was confirmed.
6. We have heard the learned counsel and have gone through the record.
7. In terms of the record, the Appellant has challenged the reserve price and the valuation report.
However, there is no basis to substantiate his claim that the property was under-valued. Even otherwise he claims knowledge of the decree on 1.5.2011, however does not explain how he came to know about the auction nor does he substantially explain his whereabouts. Some vague reference of being out of town on duty is made with nothing in support thereof. Interestingly the Appellant contested the suit, filed a PLA and even offered to pay the decretal amount vide order dated 4.5.2009. However, he failed to deposit the instalments, hence he was required to argue his PLA on 18.8.2009. The suit was decreed on 12.10.2009 after which the mortgaged property was put for auction. Order dated 10.5.2010 shows that the Court auctioneer sought permission to enter the mortgaged property as the Appellant was not cooperating. Valuation report was submitted in Court and the property was auctioned on 3.2.2011. The Appellant appeared before the executing Court after the auction and confirmation of the sale, beyond the limitation period and after the sale was confirmed.
8. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the impugned order dated 10.8.2011 passed by the learned Judge Banking Court does not call for any interference by this Court. Under the circumstances, the instant appeal is dismissed.