AYESHA A. MALIK, J. This Writ Petition impugns order dated 08.12.2010 passed by learned Cooperative Judge in Petition No, 92-C of 2009.
2. Facts of the case as per the Petitioner counsel are that the Petitioner obtained loan from National Industrial Cooperative Finance Corporation ("NICFC") and from PICIC. His property measuring 7-Kanals, 2-Marlas situated at Mouza Dhaunkal, Wazirabad District Gujranwala was mortgaged for the purposes of the loan facility. For unavoidable reasons the Petitioner defaulted with both the banks. Consequently the property was put to auction and subsequently sold to one Tariq Mahmood, Respondent No,
2. PICIC disputed the sale in favour of Respondent No, 2 by filing Objection Petition No, 825-C/2001 before Respondent No,
5. The !earned Cooperative Judge through order dated 25.09.2003 suspended the sale in favour of Respondent No,
2. Subsequently, vide order 27.02.2004 the sale was cancelled and Respondent No, 2 was directed to handover possession of the property to the Petitioner. In the meantime, the Petitioner cleared his default with both the banks and obtained No Objection Certificate ("NOC") on 13.10.2004 entitling him to the redemption of his mortgaged property. On 26.07.2005 PICIC withdrew its petition and in terms of the order, the Petitioner was allowed to approach the Board for redressal of any grievance. The Petitioner approached the Board for release of his property, which was ordered accordingly on 28.08.2006. Respondent No, 2 challenged the NOC issued in favour of the Petitioner before the learned Cooperative Judge in Petition No, 172-C of 2006, which was accepted vide order dated 26.06.2009 and NOC issued in favour of the Petitioner was declared null and void and order dated 28.10.2016 issued by Additional Secretary (Property), Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation, Lahore was declared to have lost its relevancy since the PICIC had withdrawn its petition. The Petitioner also challenged the sale in favour of Respondent No, 2 dated 15.07.2000 and sale certificate issued on 18.08.2000 before. the learned Cooperative Judge, who decided .the Matter on 09.07.2010 in Petition No, 92-C of 2009 whereby the petition was dismissed on account of delay and on the principle of estoppel.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Petitioner has cleared all loan amounts. NOC was obtained for clearance of the property, hence the Petitioner is entitled to have his property redeemed in his favour. Learned counsel further argued that sale in favour of Respondent No, 2 was cancelled by the learned Cooperative Judge vide order dated 27.02.2004 in Petition No, 825-C/2001, hence Respondent No, 2 is not entitled to keep the property of the Petitioner. Furthermore, having settled the matter, the objection petition filed by PICIC was withdrawn and that the withdrawal could not adversely affect the rights of the Petitioner with respect to his property.
4. On behalf of Respondent No, 2, it is argued that the Petitioner has misrepresented the facts; that the property was auctioned in favour of Respondent No, 2 on 15.07.2000 and sale certificate was issued on 18.08.2000; that he filed W.P. No, 2086/2001, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 27.02.2004 and thereafter, the Petition did not pursue the matter. Furthermore, on 23.06.9009 order was passed in favour of Respondent No, 2 in Petition No, 172-C of 2006, which was never challenged by the Petitioner which order has attained finality. Learned counsel argued that the Petitioner at a belated stage challenged the auction held in the year 2000 before the learned Cooperative Judge in 2008, who rightly dismissed the Petition for being filed after a considerable delay. That the Petitioner has no right to the property since it was sold in favour of Respondent No, 2.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a great length and have gone through the record available on the file. The relevant facts are that the property was auctioned and sold in favour of Respondent No, 2 on 15.07.2000 and sale-certificate was issued in his favour on 18.08.2000. The Petitioner challenged the auction proceedings and the issuance of sale certificate through Petition No, 92/2009 under Section 11 of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993 ("Act"), however the learned Cooperatives Judge dismissed the petition on account of the delay of more than eight years and because during this time, the Petitioner challenged the auction proceedings and sale certificate issued in favour of Respondent No, 2 in W.P. No, 2086/2('01, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. The Petitioner thereafter, did not challenge the matter until petition under Section 11 of the Act was filed in the year 2010. We find that the learned Cooperative Judge has rightly dismissed the petition as there was a considerable delay and the Petitioner had originally challenged the auction and sale certificate but , never pursued his remedy.
6. We are also of the opinion that the Petitioner's reliance on orders dated 25.09.2003 and 27.02.2004 in Petition No, 825-C/2001 are of no consequence firstly; the auction in favour of Respondent No, 2 took place in the year 2000 and secondly; the sale certificate was issued in favour of Respondent No, 2 on 18.08.2000. Consequently, the sale stood finalized in favour of Respondent No, 2 on 18.08.2000, who has had the possession of the property since then. The subsequent order dated 25.09.2003 whereby the sale was suspended and order dated 27.02.2004 whereby the sale was cancelled were passed without knowledge of the sale being final and the factum of possession. Hence the orders cannot be relied upon as on that date the sale stood finalized in favour of Respondent No, 2, which fact was not brought to the notice of the learned Cooperative Judge in those proceedings. Even otherwise, in terms of order dated 26.07.2005 the Petitioner was informed that it could approach the Board if he had any grievance given that PICIC had withdrawn its objection petition. Under the circumstances, the Petitioner cannot rely on the proceedings and the orders passed in Petition No, 825-C/2001.
7. Therefore, we find no illegality in the order impugned before us. This petition stands dismissed.