' MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, J.---The plaintiff/ appellant, filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,27,44,031.25 against respondents 2 to 14. The suit was decreed on 4-6-1999 for a sum of Rs.2,72,86,209.25. The defendant/ respondent No,9 had mortgaged Plot No,36, Block Hidayat Ullah, Mustafa Town, Lahore, as security. The appellant-Bank filed Execution Petition No,16-B of 2000 on 5- 4-2000 before this Court. After the promulgation of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances)
Ordinance, 2001, the. Execution petition was transmitted to the Banking Court, Lahore, on 10-9-2001, and the same was entrusted to Banking Court No,4, Lahore. Respondent No,1, filed an objection petition on 21-6-2002, before the Banking Court alleging that she married Syed Muhammad Nawaz Shah/respondent No,9 on 19-3-1981 and at the time of marriage with him her dower was fixed as Rupees 16-lac. In lieu of said dower, respondent No,9 transferred Plot No,36-B, Block Hidayat Ullah, Mustafa Town, Lahore, in her favour, vide "Iqrarnama" dated 20-3-1994. She was in possession of the property in her own right as owner. She came to know of the judgment/decree dated 4-6-1999 on 19-3-2002. She immediately filed a suit for recovery of the dower and obtained a decree in her favour on 13-6-2002 from Judge, Family Court, Lahore. The appellant-Bank had not impleaded the objection petitioner as a party in the suit for recovery of the finance. The learned Judge Banking Court No,4, Lahore, accepted the objection petition of respondent No,1 and released the property from attachment and sale under Order XXI, Rule 60, C.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Judge Banking Court has erroneously accepted the objection petition. The alleged "Iqrarnama" dated 20-3-1994 was not proved on the record nor any steps were taken by the objection petitioner/respondent No,1 for implementation of the same. The alleged transfer of the plot was afterthought.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order by contending that the registration of sale-deed was not essential under Islamic law.
4. We have gone through the order of the learned Judge Banking Court No,4, Lahore, and perused the record. The learned Banking Judge, accepted the objection petition merely on the basis of "Iqrarnama" in favour of respondent No,
1. No other evidence was recorded. We feel that in the absence of any other evidence in favour of respondent No,1, the objection petition could not be accepted. The genuineness/veracity of the document cannot be said to be above board. The suit was filed by the respondent on 7-5-2002, much after the decree dated 4-6-1996 passed in favour of the appellant/bank. We are, therefore, of the view that the objection petition has not been decided in its true perspective. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order dated 10-3- 2003 passed by learned Judge, Banking Court-IV, and remand the case to the learned Executing Court for decision of the objection petition filed by respondent No,1, after framing an issue and providing opportunity to both the parties for producing their evidence. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Executing Court on 3-7-2003.