RAJA MUHAMMAD KHURSHID, J. -- This writ petition is filed to challenge the order dated 25.2.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Lahore, whereby, he set aside the auction proceedings in respect of sale of the property held by Mahmood Ahmad Chughtai lunatic. The brief facts are that a petition under Section 75 of the Lunacy Act, 1912 read with Section 151, CPC was moved by Rukhsana Bibi, guardian of the lunatic seeking permission to sell House No. 61, Ravi Park, Qila Lachhman Singh, Lahore belonging to the lunatic. The permission was granted by the learned District Judge vide his order dated 23.10.1998 in which it was directed that the property in question shall he put in open auction through proclamation in the daily "Nawa-i-Waqe. The auction proceedings were to be conducted under the supervision and control of the learned Senior Civil Judge and the same was to be approved by the District Judge upon a report to be submitted by the Senior Civil Judge. The auction was accordingly held in pursuance of the aforesaid order and the petitioner gave the highest hid of Rs.14,50,000/- for the aforesaid house. A report to that effect was submitted by the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore vide his order dated 30.11.1998 for the approval of the auction proceedings by the learned District Judge. On receipt of report from the learned Senior Civil Judge, the learned District Judge recorded an order dated 7.12.1998 in which he approved the highest bid, given by the petitioner and directed that the case should come up for further proceedings on 22.12.1998. In the meantime, the petitioner applied for the issuance of the sale certificate upon which the learned District Judge directed enquiry to be held by Mr. Khurshid Anwar Rizvi, learned Civil Judge on the point whether or not the auction was held openly. The enquiry report showed that due to the negative and abnormal conduct of the petitioner/guardian, the property had fetched much lower price than the market value of Rs.250,0000/- to Rs.300,0000/- as disclosed by one Hafiz Muhammad Aslam before the Enquiry Officer. The learned District Judge after taking into account the enquiry report, cancelled the auction proceedings and referred the matter back to the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore for arranging open auction at the spot, to be conducted by any experienced Civil Judge. In pursuance to order dated 25.2.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Lahore, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore recorded the order dated 2.3.1999 in which he directed that the property should be sold in open auction for which he fixed 15.3.1999 as the date of auction with the reserved price of Rs.2.5 Million. The petitioner who had given the highest bid in the defunct auction proceedings was also allowed to participate in the fresh auction ordered for the re-sale of the property in question.
2. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 25.2.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Lahore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition in which it is contended that once the auction has been confirmed by the District Judge vide his order dated 7.12.1998 the property vested in the auction purchaser and the issuance of certificate was a mere formality in view of the provisions contained in Order XXI rule 92, CPC which made the sale absolute in favour of the auction purchaser. It was, therefore, contended that the learned District Judge had no option but, to issue the certificate in view of the provisions contained in rule 94 of the Order ibid. Since the learned District Judge allegedly violated the aforesaid mandatory provisions in respect of the auction in question, therefore, the impugned order was alleged to be illegal and without jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1165 Tarinikamal Pandit and others Vs. Perfulla Kumar Chatterjee
(dead) by L.Rs.. 1993 13,SC 1420 (Supreme Court of Pakistan), M/s. Lanvin Taders through Proprietress Vs. Deputy Administrator Evacuee Trust Property and others and 1989 ALD 507 (Karachi) Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan Vs. Waheed Textile Mills. Ltd. And 3 others to show that the impugned order was passed in violation of Order XXI rule 92 read with rule 94, CPC and as such, was void in the eyes of law.
3. I have considered the foregoing points and find that the provisions contained in Order XXI, CPC deals with the auctions to be made of the properties attached in the execution proceedings ensuing from the decrees passed in the civil suits between the parties involved in civil litigation. In the instant case, admittedly no decree was passed in the suit but the impugned order was passed for the sale of the property of a lunatic in view of the proceedings under Section 75 of the Lunacy Act which provides summary way of dealing with the matters falling within the purview of that Act.
In this regard, reference may be made to Section 75 of the Act supra which showed that the guardian or the manager appointed by the Court in respect of an estate of a lunatic may mortgage, sell, gift or exchange any immovable property of the lunatic with the permission of 1!
Court which may be granted subject to any condition or restriction which the Court thinks fit to impose. As such, the provisions contained in Order XXI of the CPC would not be ipso facto attracted so as to be followed strictly by the proceedings under the Lunacy Act. The jurisdiction vested in the District. Judge under the Lunacy Act is in the nature of parental jurisdiction as if the Court had to act in loco parentis to a lunatic, It is not a jurisdiction, in which there can, by its very nature, be any scope for any undue adherence to technicalities of a normal law as laid down in the Civil Procedure Code. The Court exercising parental jurisdiction is burdened with a colossal responsibility to zealously watch the interest of a lunatic under the Act supra. In the instant case, though the learned District Judge had earlier approved the auction proceedings but when it came to his notice that the market value of the house in question ranged between Rs.250,0000/- to 300,0000/- and that the highest bid in the auction was almost half of it, he opted to exercise his extra-ordinary parental jurisdiction towards the lunatic to safe-guard his interest and to recall the auction proceedings, which according to the enquiry report submitted by the Civil Judge appeared to be collusive qua the lunatic. In such a situation, there was no legal impediment in the way of the learned District Judge to undo to wrong done to a lunatic who was under his parental charge in respect of the estate held by him. Rather the learned District Judge had rightly exercised the jurisdiction vested in him under the Lunacy Act to undo the auction which was collusive and detrimental to the interest of the lunatic.
4. In view of the foregoing facts, there is no patent or latent defect in the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge so as to be call for interference on the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition is dismissed in/ limine.
C.M. Nos. 1/99 and 2/99,
5. These petitions also stand disposed of with the disposal of the main petition.