' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner secured a loan from respondent No,2 for construction of a house over the plot in question. An agreement was also executed between the petitioner and respondent No,2. According to the terms and conditions of the agreement the petitioner had to repay the loan to the respondent/Corporation in easy instalments. The petitioner failed to repay the loan to the respondent/Corporation in terms of the agreement. The Corporation being aggrieved filed a suit for recovery of loan against the petitioner before the Banking Court-II, Faisalabad. The Banking Court decreed the suit on the statement of the petitioner vide judgment and decree, dated 15-7-1998. The petitioner failed to satisfy the decree. The respondent No,2 filed execution petition before the Executing Court. The Executing Court appointed Court Auctioneer who fixed the date for auction of the property in question on 20- 2-1999. The property in question was auctioned by the Court Auctioneer for Rs,2,70,000. The petitioner filed objection petition with regard to the auction held by the Court Auctioneer before the Executing Court. The Executing Court rejected the same vide order, dated 31-10-2000 and confirmed the sale. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that petitioner had already constructed a house over the plot in question consisting of four rooms as is evident from the objection petition filed by the petitioner before the Banking Court which is attached with the writ petition as Annexure-G. He further submits that Court Auctioneer wrongly mentioned the plot instead of the house in the advertisement. This fact was not properly appreciated by the Executing Court. He further submits that auction purchaser had already filed civil suit against the petitioner on the basis of the alleged agreement executed between the petitioner and the auction purchaser. He further submits that contents of the agreement reveals that agreement was executed between the petitioner and auction purchaser for a consideration of Rs,5,05,000. He further submits that proceedings before the Executing Court was conducted in violation of the mandatory provisions of law. The Court auctioneer did not hold the auction proceedings in terms of the mandatory provisions of law. He further submits that during the pendency of the writ petition the sale certificate was also issued by the Executing Court to the respondents. The auction purchaser engaged Mr. Ghulam Sarwar, Advocate who appeared before this Court on 10-5-2001 and got adjournment for preparation which was allowed. The case was fixed for 6-6-2001. On 6-6-2001 the learned counsel of the respondents Nos.3 and 4 did not enter appearance and in the interest of justice and fairplay office was directed to send notice to the parties for 9-7-2001. The case was adjourned on 9-7-2001 on the ground that learned counsel of the petitioner sent a written request for adjournment on the ground that he was busy before the Honourable Supreme Court at Islamabad. Office sent notices to the parties on 18-10-2001 for 5-11- 2001. Despite notice nobody entered appearance on behalf of the respondents Nos.3 and 4. The name of the learned counsel of the respondent No,3 is mentioned in the cause list. In this view of the matter, the ex parte order is passed against them.
2. The learned counsel of the respondent/Corporation submits that he has no objection to accept the writ petition in case the petitioner shall satisfy the decree of the Corporation in letter and spirit within one month.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.
4. Since the advertisement was issued by the Court Auctioner with regard to the plot instead of the house. This fact brings the case in the area that the auction was not held by the Court auctioner in terms of the property in question, coupled with the fact that petitioner executed agreement to sell with auction purchaser for a consideration of Rs,50,5,000. The auction purchaser has already filed suit for specific performance against the Petition bearing No,286/1, dated 23-7-1998. In case the aforesaid facts are put in juxtaposition then it is crystal clear that the property in question was not sold vis-a-vis to the market price of the property in question. In view of what has been discussed above, the order, dated 31-10-2001 is set aside as per principle laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments: --- ' Dawood Flour Mills v. National Bank of Pakistan (1993 MLD 3205) and Messrs S.P.R.L. Rehman Brothers and others v. Judge Banking Court-II and another (2000 PCTLR 1.
The impugned order is set aside subject to the following conditions:--
(i) The petitioner shall have to satisfy the decree in letter and spirit within two (2) months from today.
(ii) The petitioner shall have to pay 5% to the auction purchaser on the amount on the basis of which he had purchased the property in question from the Executing Court.
' In case the petitioner fails to satisfy the aforesaid conditions within the prescribed period, then the writ petition automatically be deemed to be dismissed and the order of the Executing Court shall be automatically revived.