Succinctly, the predecessor in interest of the respondents No.1 to 3 instituted a suit for possession through partition against the appellants and respondents No.4 & 5. On 26.05.1997, preliminary decree was passed and the learned trial Court appointed local commission for submission of his report as to whether the suit properties are partition-able, if yes, what are modes and value of the suit properties. The local commission submitted his report wherein he stated that both the properties are not partition-able and determined the market value of the suit properties. After submission of report of local commission, the learned trial Court, on 17.12.2012, appointed court auctioneer and later on issued auction schedule of both the properties by fixing the reserved price as Rs.20,000,000/- vide order dated 26.03.2013. The respondents No.1 to 3 filed application for enhancement of the reserved price of the suit to Rs.30,000,000/- vide order dated 01.02.2014 and on 31.01.2015 separate reserved price of commercial and residential properties was fixed and auction schedule was issued. On 22.04.2015, the court auctioneer submitted his report. On 01.05.2016, the reserved price of the properties was revised. On 24.07.2023, the learned trial Court issued auction schedule regarding the auction of the suit properties and directed the court auctioneer to submit his report on 30.09.2023, which was submitted on 06.10.2023 regarding auction of the property No.S-52-R-60 situated at Nisbat Road, Lahore and in his report Court auctioneer declared plaintiff No.3 as successful bidder. The petitioners filed objection petition; one Abdullah Shabbir also filed objection petition. The learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 01.11.2023 dismissed the objection petitions. The petitioners being aggrieved preferred an appeal but the same was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 07.03.2024; hence, the instant revision petition.
2. Heard.
3. Rule 90, Order XXI, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads:- '90. Application to set aside sale on ground of irregularity or fraud.--(1) Where any immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree the decree-holder, or any person entitled to share in a rateabl distribution of assets or whose interests are affected by the sale, may apply to the Court to set aside the sale on the ground of a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it: Provided that no sale shall be set aside on the ground of irregularity or fraud unless upon the facts proved the Court is satisfied that the application has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or fraud: Provided further that no such application shall be entertained unless the applicant deposits such amount not exceeding fifty percent of the sum realized at the sale, or furnishes such security as the Court may direct.'
However, in the instant case, the petitioner while filing objection petition did not deposit 50% of the successful bid amount; therefore, the objection petition on this score was not entertainable. The learned Courts have rightly appreciated this aspect of the case, therefore, the findings in this regard are upheld and maintained.
4. In addition to the above, the argument that the objection that under Rule 72 of Order XXI, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the plaintiff No.3 being decree holder could not participate in the auction has no backing of law, because the said provision of law as substituted by Notification No.237/Legis/XI- Y-26 dated 22.08.2018, Lahore High Court Amendment as under:- '(1) The holder of a decree in execution of which the property is sold may participate in the auction of the property and for that purpose make a bid for the purchase of the property.
(2) Where a decree-holder purchases the property, the purchase-money and the amount due on the decree may, subject to the provisions of Section 73, be set-off against one another, and the Court executing the decree shall enter up satisfaction of the decree in whole or in part particularly.'
The bare perusal of the above amended provision of law goes to evince that the holder of a decree (plaintiff) in execution of which the property is sold may participate in the auction of the property and make a bid; therefore, the plaintiff No.3 was not barred to participate in the auction proceedings and make a bid.
5. Further, the record shows that the court auctioneer followed the requisite procedure as provided under the law for the purpose of conducting auction proceedings by making publication and serving notices. Even, no such objection was taken by the petitioners in their objections raised on the report of the court auctioneer. Therefore, there appears no irregularity or illegality.
6. Pursuant to the above, when there appears no illegality and irregularity as well as wrong exercise of jurisdiction, the revision petition in hand being without any force and substance, stands dismissed in limine.