This appeal is directed against the order, dated 16-5-1995 passed by Chairman, Banking Tribunal, Faisalabad whereby the objection petition, filed .By the appellant under Order 21, Rule 58, C.P.C: seeking a direction for recall of the order for attachment of Property No. 102-W-6, Madina Town, Faisalabad, on the motion of the respondent-decree-holder, was dismissed.
It was averred by the appellant that he had' purchased the disputed property vide sale agreement, dated 1-1-1990 for Rs.3,00,000 out of which a sum of Rs.1,00,000 had already been paid and balance amount was to be paid by 1-1-1993 and the bank could not legally seek attachment of the property in execution proceedings to enforce its decree, dated 5-9-1995 for recovery of Rs.31,82,539 apart for mark up amount of Rs.3,04,486.
The objection petition was opposed by the respondent-decree-holder, who pleaded, inter alia, that the agreement being relied upon by the appellant was forged and collusive, manufactured to cause loss to the bank. It was asserted that the judgment-debtor had mortgaged the disputed property earlier in its favour. Besides, original title deeds, no-objection-certificate from Faisalabad Development Authority, non-encumbrance certificate and other connected documents were handed over by him to the bank and in the presence of a subsisting mortgage qua the property, the question of its sale in favour of the appellant hardly arose. It was also pleaded that the property was very valuable and the bank was prepared to purchase it for Rs.15,00,000.
2. Learned Banking Tribunal, after hearing the parties dismissed the objection petition by observing that, prima facie, tae agreement of sale appeared to be of no avail to the appellant particularly keeping in view of the market value of the property which wits disproportionately higher than the amount mentioned in the alleged sale agreement.
3. We have perused the record with the assistance of the learned counsel and cave reached the conclusion that there is no merit in this appeal. Learned counsel could not explain as to how a property, which the decree-holder was ready to purchase for Rs.15,00,000 through the learned Tribunal, had been agreed to be alienated to the appellant by the judgment-debtor for paltry amount of Rs.3,00,000.
No evidence was led in support of the objection petition and no grievance was made either before us that some opportunity to lead evidence was B sought from the learned Tribunal and it was refused.
4. There is no force in this appeal which is hereby dismissed