This regular first appeal is filed under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (the Ordinance) for calling in question order dated 25.02.2015 passed by the banking court whereby the auction in favour of the appellant was set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that auction of the mortgaged properties was order ed by the banking court, which auction was held on 07.01.2015. The appellant participated in the auction by making a bid for Rs.10,450,000/- which was more than the reserve price fixed by the banking court. The banking court in view of the fact that the judgment debtor did not file any objections on the auction proceedings within the stipulated period passed order dated 09.02.2015 confirming the sale in favour of the appellant. The banking court, however , on 25.02.2015 set aside the auction proceedings held on 07.01.2015 and ordered for return of the amount to the appellant.
3. Learned counsel submits that the banking court after confirming the sale in favour of the appellant on 09.02.2015 had no jurisdiction to set aside the auction proceedings. Learned counse l appearing on behalf of the respondent/decree holder bank supports the stance of the appellant.
4. Arguments heard, record perused.
5. Record shows that the banking court in the proceedings conducted in terms of Order XXI, Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) fixed the reserve price of the mortgaged property at Rs.10,200,000/- as the judgment debtor despite notice failed to enter appearance before it. It is an admitted fact that the appellant made a bid for Rs.10,450,000/- which was more than the reserve price. It is an equally admitted fact that the banking court on 09.02.2015 confirmed the sale in favour of the appellant. The banking court, therefore, could not have unilaterally set aside the auction proceedings particularly when no objection from any quarter was raised before it.
Be that as it may, the banking court could not have passed the impugned order on 25.02.2015 as it was precluded to do so by virtue of the provisions contained in section 27 of the Ordinance.
6. In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside order dated 25.02.2015. The banking court is directed to issue the necessary sale certificate in favour of the appellant.