IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 17.04.2017, whereby F .A.O. No, 317 of 2004 filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for decision of this lis are that Respondent No.1-Muslim Commercial Bank Limited filed a suit against the petitioners seeking recovery of Rs.490,092.5 1. Such suit was decreed on 31.03.2003. The petitioners filed an appeal bearing R.F.A. No. 213 of 2003 challenging the judgment and decree before the High Court. In the meantime, the decree holder Bank carried out execution proceedings in which the property mortgaged by the petitioners was ordered to be auctioned vide order dated 14.0.2003. The said auction took place on 09.09.2003 in which Respondent No, 2 was the highest bidder . The petitioners filed an objection petition on 22.09.2003 under Order XXI, Rule 90, C.P.C. The said application was dismissed for non-prosecution on 05.07.2004, on which date the auction was also confirmed in favour of Respondent No,2. The petitioners challenged the order dated 05.07.2004 before the High Court through F.A.O. No.317 of 2004 which was dismissed by way of the impugned judgment.
3. It is significant to note that R.F.A. No, 213 of 2003 was allowed on 01.12.201 1 whereby the judgment and decree of the Banking Court was set aside. Cons equently , the High Court also set aside the order dated 05.07.2004 which was challenged by Respondents Nos,3 and 4 before this Court which remanded the matter to the High Court for decision afresh. This petition is directed against the said fresh decision dated 17.04.2017 whereby the F.A.O. filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
4. The only point agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioners before us is that the property was sold at a throwaway price. Further R.F.A. No, 213 of 2003 was decided in favour of the petitioners which was not challenged further . There was no judgment and decree in the field in pursuance whereof the property was put to auction.
Therefore, the High Court erred in law in dismissing the F .A.O. and upholding the auction.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, we find that there was no material on record brought by the petitioners to show that the property had been sold at a throwaway price. Even otherwise, the objection petition filed by the petitioners 'was misconceived and not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioners did not deposit 20% of the highest bid with their objection petition. The provisions of Order XXI, Rule 90, C.P.C. have come under discussion in various judgments pronounced by this Court in which it has conclusively been held that the statutory deposit of 20% by the judgment debtor is mandatory and that without such a deposit the objection application under Order XXI, Rule 90, C.P.C. is not maintainable. In the present A case, the record indicates that the petitioners did not make the statutory deposit along with their application dated 22.9.2003 and instead deposited the cheques on 03.03.2004. As such, their application was clearly not maintainable. Reference in this regard may usefully be made to Nice 'N' Easy Fashion (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Allied Bank of Pakistan (2014 SCMR 1662 ) and Zakaria Ghani v . Muhammad Ikhlaq Memon (PLD 20261 Supreme Court 229 ).
6. Further , it is also settled law that an objection regarding reserve price cannot be taken by the judgment debtor after the auction has taken place. The duty to raise such an objection at the initial stages is cast on the judgment debtor .
7. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the fact that R.F.A. No 213 of 2003 had been allowed which would have the effect of nullifying the sale in favour of Respon dent No,2 is misconceived. The record indicates that the sale had already taken place, had become absolute and sale certificate had already been issued before the R.F.A. was allowed. It is by now settled that with the holding of sale, third party interests intervene which cannot be disregarded and a valid sale in execution would not become invalid to the prejudice of the auction purchaser because the decree has been wiped out or reversed in the meantime. These judgments proceed on the basis of the language of Rule 92, Order XXI, C.P.C. which stipulates that the sale would become absolute once the order for its confirmation had been made by the Executing Court. This principle was reiterated in a judgment of this Court reported as Hudaybia Textile Mills Ltd. and others v. Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. and others (PLD 1987 Supreme Court 512). We are in no manner of doubt that a sale which had already been confirmed in favour of the auction purchaser could not in the facts and circumstances of the case be set aside even if the decree in favour of the Bank had been set aside by the learned High Court in the R.F.A. No other ground was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
8. Having seen from all angles, we have not found any legal, procedural or jurisdictional error, defect or flaw in the impugned judgment nor could the learned counsel point out any that may require interference by this Court.
9. For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused.