This first appeal under section 104, C.P.C. And under section 21(5) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, has been directed against the order, dated 7-7-1999 passed by the Judge, Banking Court No.II, Lahore whereby application under Order 21, Rules 62, 69 and 103 read with section 151, C.P.C. Was dismissed with the following observation:-- "This is third application on behalf of the objector regarding the same subject-matter. First application was dismissed by my detailed order, dated 14-7-1998. Second application on 14-12- 1998. No fresh ground has been urged, hence petition is dismissed."
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondents Nos. l and 2 filed a suit against respondents Nos.3 to 5 before the Banking Court, Lahore for recovery of Rs.4,82,521.50. Respondents .Nos.3 to 5 did not file any application for leave to defend and as such the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree, dated 16-10-1997.
3. Respondents Nos. l and 2 in consequence of the abovesaid decree filed an execution petition before the learned Banking Court No.2, Lahore against respondents Nos.3 to 5. The present appellant moved an objection petition under Order 21, Rule 58 and section 103, C.P.C. On 18-4-1998, which was dismissed vide order, dated 14-7-1998 with the following observation:-- "that property under auction is an open plot measuring 10 Marlas located in the Revenue Estate of Mauza Devipura Tehsil Cantt. Lahore whereas objector has based his claim on the basis of house which was purchased by him from Mst. Shamim Akhtar in the year 1979 i.e. 17-3-1979. The particulars of the house given in the sale--deed in favour of objectors does not conform with that of the plot under auction, therefore, objector cannot lay hand upon the open plot which is subject- matter of auction on the basis of sale--deed dated 17-3-1979. Judgment-debtor mortgaged her property i.e. 10. Marlas plot while producing all the required documents including N.E.C. Whereas objector purchased house somewhere on 17-3-1979, thus, property under auction is altogether is different from that owned by objection." .
4. A second objection petition under Order 21, Rule 58, section 103 read with section 151, C.P.C. Was filed by the appellant on 16-7-1999, which was dismissed vide order, dated 14-12-1998. After dismissal of the abovesaid two objection petitions filed by the appellant, the Court auctioneer conducted auction of the property mentioned in Fard-e-Taleeqa whereupon the appellant filed another application under Order 21, Rules 62, 69 and 103 read with section 151,. C.P.C. In the learned trial Court on 23-2-1999 which remained pending and was ultimately dismissed vide order, dated 7-7-1999. This order has been assailed in the present appeal. In response to pre--admission notice, Mr. Shahryar Sheikh, Advocate appeared on behalf of respondents Nos. l and 2.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The learned trial Court dismissed the application of the appellant on 7-7-1999 on the ground that two applications regarding same subject-matter have already been dismissed vide orders, dated 14- 7-1998 and 14-12-1998. No fresh ground has been urged, hence the petition was dismissed and in the light of the report submitted by the Court auctioneer the decree-holder was directed to apprise the Court of .Further proceedings.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has' argued before us that the description and particulars of the property given by the decree-holder in the plaint and Fard-e-Taleeqa were altogether inconsistent with each other. While rejecting objection petitions of the appellant. Learned trial Court has held that there is no merit in the contention raised by the appellant's learned counsel and the property under auction is altogether different from that owned by the objector. The appellant admittedly purchased the property in question through a registered sale-deed, dated 17-3-1979 from Mst. Shamim Begum whereas Mst. Shamim Begum allegedly purchased the same property from judgment-debtor namely Mst. Muqtadar Khatoon vide registered sale-deed dated 17-3-1979.
Both the registered sale-deeds are of the same date, therefore, the learned trial Court was justified in holding that the property under auction is altogether different from that owned by the objector.
The appellant has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Banking Court. This appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.