' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---Instant appeal, filed by Mst. Farasat Jabeen, the objector, proceeds against the order dated 4-6-1995, whereby the learned Banking Court dismissed appellant's objection petition.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that pursuant to the passing of final decree for the recovery of Rs.1,83,116, by the learned Banking Court, vide judgment and decree dated 30-11-1991, against Abdul Hameed etc., decree holder/ U.B.L. Filed an execution petition and during the execution process, house, stately, owned and possessed by the appellant, was attached. The appellant filed an objection petition thereby submitting that she has purchased the plot, vide registered sale-deed, from Mian Shuakat Ali and thereafter raised construction of a double storey building, therefore, the house is not liable to be attached in execution of the decree. The said petition was resisted by the decree-holder and ultimately the same was dismissed by the learned Banking Court vide order dated 4-6-1995, hence the present appeal.
3. Respondent No, 1 /U.B.L. Was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 29.-4-2002. According to the office report all the respondents were issued notices for today, but none has represented the respondents, thus, they are proceeded ex parte.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant is a bona fide purchaser for consideration without notice and that the learned Banking Court has summarily dismissed the objection petition without affording opportunity to the appellant to establish her claim.
5. We have examined the record and find that precisely the case, as made out by the appellant in her objection petition, was that she has purchased the plot from Mian Shaukat Ali vide registered sale-deed and thereafter constructed a double storey house; that she is bona fide and lawful purchaser with consideration and without notice about the mortgage of the plot. Examination of the impugned order manifests that the contentions/ stances taken by the appellant in her objection petition were not at all considered by the Banking Court in its true perspective and the impugned order was passed only on the premises that the plot was mortgaged prior to the execution of the sale-deed in favour of the appellant. To say the least, the approach of the learned Banking Court is not sustainable in law. Furthermore the documents produced by the objector were not at all considered by the learned Banking Court, while non-suiting the appellant.
6. Upon the examination of the objection petition and the available record, we find that this was the fit case in which the learned Banking Court, before passing the impugned order, ought to have investigated the claims and objections, to the attachment of the property, raised by the appellant, by providing sufficient opportunity to the parties for establishing their respective claims through production of evidence. It has been held in Mst. Syrreya Begum v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. And 4 others PLD 1990 Lahore 4, that "all claims relating to the rights, title or interest of the claimant or objector in the attached property have to be adjudicated upon and determined by the Court and no separate suit shall lie to establish such title, right or interest". It does not mean that the learned Executing Court is under an obligation to mechanically record the evidence of the objector in each and every case, of course, the learned Executing Court had to see in individual cases as to whether the case warrants the recording of evidence or not and that the objection petition has been filed frivolously, contumaciously and to delay the proceedings or it is a genuine application. Primarily, it is the function of the Banking Court to decide as to whether the objection petition is to be decided after recording the evidence or only after hearing the parties. In the instant case, we feel that this was the fit case, where the appellant should have been allowed an opportunity to establish her claim, regarding the attachment of the property, through the production of evidence.
7. In the above perspective we have examined the impugned order and are of the view that the same is not sustainable and we are inclined to set aside the same.
8. Upshot of the above discussion is that the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside with no order as to costs. The result would be that the objection petition, filed by the appellant, shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Banking Court, who shall decide the same after affording adequate opportunities to the parties to produce their evidence to establish their respective claims and, of course, in accordance with law.