KAUSAR SULTANA HUSSAIN, J. Through instant First Appeal, the Appellant/Judgment Debtor has assailed the order dated 19.12.2017, passed by the Banking Court No. II at Karachi in Execution No. 672 of 2009 (Suit No. 290 of 2008), whereby the Court after completion of all codal/legal formalities of sale through auction of mortgaged property has confirmed its sale in terms of Order XXI, Rule 92, C.P.C., in respect of mortgaged property bearing Industrial Plot No. P/1-A, Kotri Industrial Area, Phase-I, Kotri, Sindh admeasuring 2 acres in favour of one Ali Nawaz son of Muhammad Long Khan with directions to Nazir of the Banking Court to issue Sale Certificate in favour of the auction purchaser Ali Nawaz or in the name of his nominee(s) and release the documents of auctioned property to the auction purchaser as well as release sale proceeds to the Decree Holder Bank on proper receipt and verification. The Nazir was also directed to handover the vacant peaceful physical possession of the mortgaged property to auction purchaser within a period of seven (7) days from the date of order and also deliver the original title documents of the property in question to the auction purchaser forthwith. The Appellant/Judgment Debtor has prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 19.12.2017 owing to the reasons as pointed out by the learned counsel for the Appellant/Judgment Debtor, that the Banking Court has confirmed the bid at Rs. 31,000,000/- (Thirty One Millions), which is much less from the actual value of property in question; the learned trial Court failed to consider that the property has approximate value of above 50 (Fifty) Million per acre more than the value as reported by the evaluator and that was the reason the auction purchaser paid more than forced value. He further argued that the learned trial Court did not call fresh valuation of the suit property in compliance of Order XXI, Rule 66, C.P.C., therefore, the order impugned here through filing instant appeal is bad in law as well as on the facts, hence it is liable to be set aside. He relied upon the case law in support of his contention reported in PLD 2003 SC 500 and PLD 2014 SC 283.
2. On the contrary the learned counsel for the Respondent has supported the impugned order dated 19.12.2017 and submitted that the instant appeal is not maintainable, the Respondent/Decree Holder during Execution proceedings had filed a statement under Order XXI, Rule 66 read with section 47, C.P.C. along with fresh valuation report dated 20.02.2017 through approved valuator Messrs Iqbal A. Nanjee and Co. Pvt. Limited of State Bank of Pakistan in compliance of specific directions of the Trial Judge and on the basis of completion of all required legal formalities as provided under Order XXI, Rule 66, C.P.C., more so objection of the Appellant/Judgment Debtor had not been considered by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel for the Respondent/ Decree Holder has prayed for dismissal of the present appeal being not maintainable. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the Respondent/Decree Holder has relied upon the judgments reported in 2014 SCMR 1222 (Mst. Anwar Sultana v. Bank Al-Falah Ltd. and others (2) 2009 CLD 594 (Supreme Court of Pakistan) (Mumtaz-ud-Din Feroz v. Shaikh Iftikhar Adil and others), (3)
2013 CLC 702 (Sindh) Mst. Noor Khatoon and others v. Messrs Habib Bank Ltd and another; (4)
2013 CLD 1667 (Sindh) (Muhammad Rafiq through attorney v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and others); (5) PLD 1987 Supreme Court 512 Hudaybia Textile Mills Ltd and others v.
Allied Bank of Pakistan and others.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the record available on the file in the light of relevant laws.
4. Record reveals that the auction of mortgaged property bearing Industrial Plot No. P/1-A, Kotri Industrial Area, Phase-I, Kotri, Sindh admeasuring 2 acres, was conducted on 25.09.2017, in the premises of the trial Court i.e. Banking Court No. II, Karachi in presence of learned counsel for the Respondent/Decree Holder Bank, which was participated by the nine persons/bidders, who offered their respective bids, out of them one bidder namely Ali Nawaz son of Muhammad Long Khan offered highest bid of Rs. 31,000,000/- (Thirty One Million only) and deposited 25% of bid amount, which comes to Rs. 7,750,000/- (Seventy Seven Lacs Fifty Thousand only) through Pay Order and on 10.10.2017 he deposited remaining amount of Rs. 23,250,000/- (Twenty Three Million, Two Lacs and Fifty Thousand only) through Pay Order dated 09.10.2017. The offered bid amount was in excess to the forced sale value provided in the valuation report of valuator. The learned trial Court, on submission of no objection certificate dated 10.10.2017 of the Respondent/Decree Holder Bank on offered bid of Ali Nawaz auction purchaser, accepted the said bid in the sum of Rs. 31,000,000/- (Thirty One Million). The Appellant/Judgment Debtor after auction proceedings dated 25.09.2017, filed an application under Order XXI, Rules 26 and 89 read with section 151, C.P.C. during the statutory period of 30 days and the learned trial Court had dismissed the same vide order dated 12.12.2017. The impugned order reflects that no application under Order XXI, Rule 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 66, 89, 90 or 91, C.P.C. had been filed by the Appellant/Judgment Debtor or any other person having interest by virtue of title over the mortgaged property. The learned trial Court under the circumstances mentioned above confirmed the sale of mortgaged property in question in favour of Ali Nawaz auction purchaser and accordingly sale certificate was ordered to be issued by the Nazir.
5. Now through filing instant appeal, the Appellant/Judgment Debtor seeks setting aside the said order of confirmation of sale and issuance of sale certificate by the trial Court on the ground of sale of mortgaged property against much less value as discussed above. The ground for setting aside the confirmation of sale of mortgaged property on less value is such a ground, which cannot be considered in favour of the Appellant/Judgment Debtor as it is known proposition, that a property sold through Court auction will usually not capture the market value and normally be sold for a price below the market value for various valid reasons. However, in present case the record shows that the mortgaged suit property was sold through auction at a value, which is more than the forced value, therefore, merely raising objections as to inadequacy of sale price is not sufficient, hence the objection raised by the Appellant/Judgment Debtor is not sustainable being devoid of logic.
6. It is manifest from the impugned order dated 19.12.2017 that the auction proceedings in respect of the property in question have been conducted, the sale has been confirmed and the possession of the suit property along with its title/documentation have been conveyed/ transferred to the auction purchaser. hence in these circumstances the rights of the auction purchaser cannot be disregarded. A Division Bench of High Court of Sindh in the case of United Bank Limited v. Messrs A.Z Hashmi (Pvt.) Limited and others reported in 2000 CLC 1438 held that 'when a sale was confirmed, an auction purchaser acquired valuable rights in the property, which could not be disturbed'. We are therefore, of the view that the impugned order for confirmation of sale through auction has attained finality and the learned counsel for the Appellant/Judgment Debtor has failed to raise any logical and legal ground, which require interferes of this Court in the bona fide rights of the auction purchaser. The impugned order is found to be in consonance with law and as a consequence thereof the same is hereby upheld. The instant appeal being not maintainable was dismissed by us vide short order dated 02.11.2022.
7. These are the reasons for the aforesaid short order.