ORDER MAIILVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.- Nomination papers filed by the petitioners to contest election to the seat of Nazim and Naib Nazim in UC-95 Alhamra, Lahore were rejected by the learned R.O. On the ground that petitioner No. 1 is a defaulter in payment of dues of National Bank of Pakistan inasmuch as a decree for the recovery of Rs. 1,13,09003/- had been passed by Banking Tribunal in favour of the Bank and against, inter alia, the said petitioner. An appeal was filed which was disposed of by the learned DRO, Lahore v/de order dated 15.6.2001 in line with the decision by him in respect of twenty appeals on the same date, whereby he had directed the alleged defaulters to obtain a clearance certificate from the financial institutions.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Banking Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass a decree, and that a learned Full Bench of this Court had in fact set aside the said decree while deciding the writ petition' filed by the said petitioner alongwith several others. Further contends that the loan had been obtained by the Company of which the petitioner No. 1 had been a Director under an arrangement whereby sufficient security was furnished by way of collateral including mortgage of the personal property of the petitioner No. I and that the execution is in progress in accordance with the directions contained in the said ^decree and as such it cannot be said that the petitioner No. t stands adjudged as a willful defaulter.
3. Dr. Mohayuddin Qazi, Advocate, on the other hand argues that admittedly a decree stands passed which has not so far been satisfied and that this fact alone would constitute the petitioner No. 1 to be willful defaulter within the meaning of law.
4. I have gone through the several documents appended with the writ petition and also produced by the learned counsel for the parties today. I do not find it proper to comment on the said first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner whereby he challenged the vires of the decree within the confines of these proceedings. So far as other contention of the learned counsel is concerned I do find force in the same, k is true that the decree has been passed but this decree itself directs the mode in which the amount is to be recovered. It lays drawn the schedule for the sale of property to satisfy the decree. Learned counsel for the objector complains that petitioner No. I has challenged the sale of his property. Learned counsel for the petitioners rebuts with the contention that the sale has been challenged on grounds available as there had been some fraud and irregularity in the proceedings of sale result whereof was that inadequate consideration was obtained for the property in course of the auction that had been challenged. To my mind under law it is a right of a judgment-debtor or any other party to question the sale on available grounds in accordance with the manner prescribed by law and proceedings taken to protect once's right cannot always be said to be a proceeding for defeating the purpose of decree. Needless to add that in ultimate analysis it will be the decree-holder/Bank who would be benefitting if more price is obtained as a result of re- auction, if ordered by the competent Court. Further the learned counsel after seeking instructions from his client states that in order to establish his bona fides the petitioner No. 1, subject to the contentions got noted by the Learned counsel, is ready to make a deposit. Petitioner No. 1 is present in person alongwith his brother. A. Ghaffar Sheikh son of Wahid Sheikh (275-47-293270;, has produced for examination the original Special US Dollars Bonds of the face value of US ft 30,000/- (US $ 10,000/- each) in the name of Abdul Ghaffar and his wife Mrs. Lubna Ghaffar. There is a legend "joint B". Learned counsel states that these Bonds are negotiable and encashable by either of the two holders thereof and ensures that A. Ghaffar Sheikh can negotiate these Bonds. These Bonds are to mature on 15.12.2001 and the amount thereof is payable with the profits at the agreed rate. Offer is that A. Ghaffar Sheikh shall present these documents at the relevant Branch of National Bank of Pakistan and take all steps in consultation with the concerned officers of the said Bank for negotiation so as to release the amount thereof in favour of the said Bank for adjustment against alleged decretal amount and this deposit will further be subject to the decision in FAOs Nos. 290, 311 and 312 of 1995 pending in this Court, to which, the said Bank is a party. Petitioner No. I and his said brother shall after so depositing and negotiating the said Bonds in favour of the said Bank shall obtain a receipt therefrom and present the same before the Learned R.O. Who shall proceed to enter the names of the petitioners in the list of validly nominated candidates for the said seats and take such further steps as are necessary. The Bonds have been returned to the Learned counsel for the petitioners. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of on the said lines. Petitioner No. I and his said brother A. Ghaffar have been duly put on notice that in case for any reason attributable to them or the co-holder of the Bonds, the amount of the said Bonds is not released in favour of the said National Bank of Pakistan on the date of maturity of Bonds not only this order allowing the nomination papers of the petitioners shall stand recalled but they shall also be liable to face charges in contempt. Copy Dasti.