' The facts of the case are straightforward. A decree was passed by the learned Banking Court against the petitioner on 5-9-1997 on a suit filed by the respondent National Bank of Pakistan.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the matter- between the petitioner and the Bank was settled out of Court as the petitioner had made payment of sums due to the Bank as per relief package allowed by the Bank. He also points out that instructions were given by the Bank to its learned counsel to withdraw the execution petition. These instructions, it may be noted, were issued after the date of the auction of the property in dispute.
2. In execution of the aforesaid decree numerous attempts, at auctioning the property in question, were made without success. However, at a Court auction held on 7-9-1999 the respondent auction-purchaser Jalil Ahmed Khan Niazi made the highest bid of Rs,30,75,000 to purchase the disputed property.
3. A petition was filed by the petitioner under Order XXI, rule 90, C.P.C. To challenge the auction sale.
In the said application, vide order, dated 18-10-1999 the learned Executing Court directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the auction amount of Rs,6,15,000 in Court prior to 4-11-1999. This order was not , complied with by the petitioner. It is contended by learned counsel for the Bank and learned counsel for the auction-purchaser that the said amount, even subsequently and todate, has not been deposited. In the circumstances, the objection petition was dismissed by the learned Executing Court for non-compliance of the aforesaid order, dated 18-1,0-1999.
4. Even the equities of the case are against the petitioner who repeatedly frustrated the attempts of the executing Court to auction the property in question and thereafter refused to comply with the Court's order, dated 18-10-1999 requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs,6,15,000 being 20% of the auction amount. In the circumstances the objection application of the petitioner under Order XXI, rule 90, C.P.C. Was dismissed and the Court auction was confirmed on 7-3-2000. Learned counsel for the auction-purchaser contends that the action taken by the learned Executing Court entirely justified and was strictly in accordance with law. There is merit in this submission.
5. In addition to the above, learned counsel for the auction-purchaser states a writ petition to challenge the Court auction would not lie in the above circumstances. This contention is also well- founded.
6. For the foregoing reasons I find no merit in this petition which is, therefore, dismissed.
7. The auction amount, however, shall be paid to the petitioner because the decree-holder Bank has already issued a certificate, dated 3-11-1999 stating therein that the outstanding amount recoverable by the Bank has been fully adjusted as per relief package.