' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.-The respondent-Bank filed a suit for recovery against the appellant which was decreed by the learned trial Court on 17-1-2002 to the tune of Rs,2,01,132.33 alongwith the costs of the funds against the appellant. The appellant did not challenge that decree any further, therefore, in execution of the said decree the mortgaged property so attached was put to auction and has been purchased by the respondent No,2 for a price of Rs,6,51,000. The appellant objected to the above sale on the ground that the sale has been fraudulently conducted; he was shown present at the time of auction proceedings whereas he was not present, that the property was not sufficiently described in the proclamation. That objection petition has been rejected by the learned Executing Court, through the impugned order dated 3-9-2002.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the submission made before the learned Court below. We are afraid that on both the counts the sale cannot be set aside. Because that the property has been sufficiently described in the proclamation, which is in consonance with the mortgage documents. The submission, that in the mortgage documents the property has been shown to be a commercial property whereas in the proclamation it is not, is absolutely misconceived. The property has been described by reference to its number and area and this is the adequate compliance of Order XXI, rule 66 of the Civil Procedure Code. As regards the presence of the appellant at the time of auction is concerned the record reveals otherwise, and from no independent evidence the appellant has been able to establish that he was not present at the time of auction. Even otherwise his absence would not be of such material effect upon the auction thus, it cannot be held to be fraudulent on this account. The appeal has no merits and is hereby dismissed.