' Through the institution of this Constitutional petition, the petitioners have called in question order dated 20-5-1997 (Annex-F) with the prayer that the same may be declared as unlawful and the objection petition, filed by the petitioners, be decided on merits.
2. Facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioners claimed to be a bona fide purchaser of House No,33-G, Gulberg-III, Lahore, vide sale-deed registered on 9-5-1988 from a vendor, who statedly purchased the same property from one Mst. Sitara Begum vide sale- deed dated 8-3-1983. The writ petition further narrates that suit for the recovery of Rs,5,18,735.52 was decreed ex parte, on 12-7-1991, against respondent No,2. Pursuant to the above, respondent No,1 filed an execution application, through which the aforesaid property was ordered to be auctioned. According to the petitioner, on attaining the said knowledge, he filed an objection petition on 19-1-1995 and, therefore, the respondent No,3 directed respondent No,1 to produce the copy of the mortgage-deed, but the Bank failed to comply with the terms of the order dated 29-5- 1995. Subsequently, the execution petition was ordered to be consigned to record room as the Bank desired to sell the mortgaged property itself, vide order dated 20-5-1997, which order has been called in question.
3. Although the name of the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has duly been published in the cause list, but nobody has entered appearance to defend this case on behalf of the respondent, thus, the respondent-Bank is proceeded ex parte.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that despite the fact that the respondent- Bank was itself guilty of non-compliance of the order of the Banking Court by not producing the mortgage-deed, yet the petitioners/objectors were non-suited by the Banking Court on the assumption that the mortgaged property can be sold by the decree-holder without any interference by the Court.
5. From the perusal of the order-sheet, it is evident that although an objection petition was filed by the petitioners, but the same was dismissed for non-prosecution on 29-1-1997 and the petitioners comprehensively failed to file any application, before the learned Banking Court, for the restoration of their objection petition. Moreover, the said order has not been challenged by the petitioners even in the present writ petition, which was instituted on 24-5-1997. The petitioners are not at all aggrieved by the order dated 20-5-1997 but the real grievance of the petitioners should be from the order dated 29-1-1997, through which their objection petition was dismissed, but the said order has not been called in question even uptil now and hence attained finality. The only remedy available to the petitioners under the circumstances was to file an application seeking restoration of their objection petition or they could have filed a fresh application at that point of time, which remedies were not availed by the petitioner at the relevant time.
6. In the present scenario, the writ petition is not maintainable as an adequate and efficacious remedy was available to the petitioners by way of filing the restoration application. The order dated 29-1-1997 has not been challenged uptil now, therefore, the same has attained finality. The writ petition is also not maintainable on the ground that an alternative remedy was available but the same was not availed by the petitioners at an appropriate time. The writ petition is misconceived, not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. The petitioners are not aggrieved persons within the ambit of Article 199(1) of the Constitution.
7. In view of the above reasons and discussions, the writ petition is devoid of merits, thus, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. As the respondent-Bank is not represented, therefore, office is directed to send a copy of this order to the said respondent-Bank immediately.