' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---This appeal impugns the order dated 14-9-2001, passed by the learned Banking Court-II, Gujranwala.
2. A decree for a sum of Rs,63,41,723 was passed against the appellant and other judgment- debtors. A Court auction for sale of the properties of the judgment-debtors was held on 13-9-1999, at which A.D.B.P. The decree-holder was allowed to purchase the property in question for a sum of Rs,34,00,000 plus 5%.
3. The record shows that thereafter the learned Banking Court passed an order dated 25-11-2000 with the consent of the appellant Ghulam Rasool and Ghulam Mustafa, who is son of one of the judgment-debtors namely, Feroz Din. Because of the importance of the said order dated 25-11- 2000, the same is reproduced below for reference:-- "25-11-2000 Present: Ch. Farrukh Mehmood Sulehria counsel for decree-holder/Bank.
' Syed Rizwan Bukhari counsel for judgment-debtor No,2 alongwith Maqbool Ahmed.
' Ghulam Rasool judgment-debtor No,3 in person.
' Learned counsel for Ghulam Mustafa objection petitioner states that objection petitioner is prepared to deposit the auction price amounting to Rs,34,00,000 plus 5% as required under Order 21, rule 89, C.P.C. The judgment-debtor No,3 i,e, Ghulam Rasool states that he is prepared to deposit an amount of Rs,40,00,000 plus 5%. Learned counsel for the decree-holder has no objection. Under these circumstances, Ghulam Mustafa objection petitioner is directed to deposit Rs,34,00,000 plus 5% and Ghulam Rasool judgment-debtor is directed to deposit Rs,40,00,000 plus 5% as required under Order 21, rule 89, C.P.C. On or before 1-12-2000. On their failing to do so, their applications shall stand dismissed.
' Learned counsel for the judgment-debtor No,2 requests for adjournment for filing reply as the copy of the application has not been given to him due to which he is not in a position to submit reply. Copy of the application be given to learned counsel for the judgment-debtor No,2. To come up; for reply and arguments on all the applications on 14-12-2000."
4. The aforesaid order was impugned by the appellant Ghulam Rasool in Writ Petition No,25160 of 2000. The said writ petition, however, was dismissed vide order dated 21-12-2000.
5. The admitted position is that Ghulam Mustafa had deposited an amount of Rs,34,00,000 plus 5% agreed by him on 25-11-2000. Ghulam Rasool failed to abide by the commitment to deposit Rs,40,00,000 plus 5% on or before 1-12-2000.
6. We also note that the land measuring 9 Kanals, 19 Marlas claimed by the appellant Ghulam Rasool is part of a joint Khata owned by him, the other judgment-debtors and the auction- purchaser Ghulam Mustafa. As such Ghulam Mustafa possessed a valid and subsisting interest in the said 9 Kanals, 19 Marlas of land apart from having a subsisting interest in the entire Khata. He, as such was entitled to acquire the property, which had been auctioned in favour of A.D.B.P. This right was available to him under Order XXI, rule 89, C.P.C.
7. We note that the appellant Ghulam Rasool failed to abide by the commitment mentioned in the order of the learned Banking Court dated 25-11-2000. Furthermore, his writ petition to assail the said order was also dismissed. In these circumstances, the impugned order whereby the objection petition filed by Ghulam Rasool was dismissed, is not open to exception.
8. Today learned counsel for the respondent No,5 namely Arshad Mahmood, who is son of the appellant, has advanced argument on behalf of the said Arshad Mahmood. According to him, respondent No,5 has also assailed the order dated 14-9-2001. However, his appeal is not before us.
It was also contended on behalf of respondent No,5 that he had moved an application before the learned Banking Court for setting aside the sale of the auctioned property. According to learned counsel for respondent No,5, the said application has not been decided by the learned Banking Court. This assertion, however, is not consistent with the record. We have seen the order dated 14- 9-2001, wherein the application of Arshad Mahmood respondent No,5 has been dismissed.
9. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is dismissed.