' ATA-UR-REHMAN, J.---This is an appeal under Order 43, rule 1 and section 104, C.P.C. Read with section 22(i) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 hereinafter referred to as "the Ordinance, 2001" against the various orders passed by the trial Court.
2. The facts are that Suit No,207 of 1998; filed by Habib Bank Limited, was decreed on 16-9-1998. The decree-holders filed Execution Application No,68 of 1999 for satisfaction of decree. During the execution proceedings the factory, mortgaged with the Bank/Decree-Holders, was given in the custody of the Official Assignee (O.A.) for disposal through auction for the satisfaction of decree.
3. The O.A. After putting the property at auction filed various references and orders were passed thereon by the learned Single Judge. The first relevant order is dated 20th June, 2002, which was passed on O.A.'s Reference dated 12-6-2002. In this order the judgment-debtors were allowed to match the offer of Rs,25.25 crores of Shaikh Shahzad & others i,e, Respondent No,2; the judgment- debtors suggested and they were allowed to deposit a sum of Rs,50 lacs on or before 22-6-2002.
The second order is dated 25-6-2002 whereby C.M.A. No,1770 of 2002 filed by the judgment-debtors for extension of time for three days to comply with the Court order dated 20-6-2002 was dismissed with cost of Rs,5,000.
4. Earlier to the above, on 31st May, 2002 O.A.'s Reference dated 20-5-2002 was placed before the Court wherein the O.A. Had submitted that Shaikh Shahzad Iqbal and others have given a bid of Rs,25.25 (Twenty-five, crores and twenty-five lacs). The Court took on record the Reference dated 20-5-2002 and also recorded the consent of Mr. Fida Hussain, Litigating Officer of Decree-HoldeRs, It appears that the Reference dated 28-5-2002 was once again placed before the Court on 1-7- 2002 and the learned Single Judge in the operative part of para. (1) observed as under:-- ' Official Assignee's reference dated 28-5-2002, which was taken on record on 31-5-2002, is disposed of and the offer of Messrs Shaikh Shahzad Iqbal and Hashim Ali and Muhammad Ashraf Shahzad is accepted."
5. Thereafter, the present appeal was preferred. It is not clear from the appeal as to against which specific order the same has been preferred. Alongwith the appeal, copies of the orders dated 31-5- 2002, 20-6-2002, 25-6-2002 and 1-7-2002 have been placed.
6. The main grievance of the appellant is that the trial Court has not provided the appellant an opportunity of invoking the provisions of Rules 89, 90 and 92 of Order 21, C.P.C. Mr. Zaki drew the attention to these provisions and submitted that with effect from 1-7-2002 a period of thirty days will be available to the judgment-debtors to invoke the provisions of rule 89 of Order 21, C.P.C. He contends that the appellant still have about eight to nine days at their disposal to comply with the provisions of rule 89 of Order 21, C.P.C. And in case the appellants are able to deposit the required amount as provided in the said provisions the property may be reverted back to the appellant. It is however, conceded by him that no application under rule 89 of Order 21, C.P.C. Has been moved by the appellant before the trial Court.
7. In reply, Mr..Rizvi, first referred to section 22(1) and (6) of the Ordinance, 2001. He contended that this appeal is not maintainable in view of the said provisions as it has challenged the interlocutory orders and not the final order. He referred to the order passed by this Court on 10-7-2002 which is reproduced as under:-- "By consent, the appellant is directed to deposit Rs,50,00,000 by 20th of this month in terms of order dated 20-6-2002 passed in Ex. No,68 of 1999, thereafter, the matter may be listed for hearing on 22- 7-2002."
8. Mr. Rizvi further contended that the above order was passed on the concession given by decree- holder to the judgment-debtoRs, He stated that admittedly this amount has not been deposited in Court up to date. According to him, in fact, the conduct of the judgment-debtor shows that they are not interested in depositing the amount but they want to protract the proceedings on one or other pretext. Mr. Rizvi argued that in case the judgment-debtors wanted to invoke the provisions of Rules 89, 90 and 92 of Order 21, C.P.C. They could have approached the trial Court but they failed to do so.
9. We considered the submission of both the sides and examined provisions of law. The subsections (1) and (6) of section 22 of the Ordinance, 2001, are reproduced as under:-- "Section 22.---(1) Subject to subsection (2), any person aggrieved by any judgment, decree, sentence or final order prefer an appeal to the High Court.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5) _______________
(6) No appeal. Review or revision shall lie against an order accepting or rejecting an application for leave to defend, or any interlocutory order of the Banking Court which does not dispose of the entire case before the Banking Court other than an order passed under subsection (11) of section 15 or subsection (7) of section 19 (Underlined are for emphasis).
10. A close scrutiny of subsections (1) and (6) of section 22 (ibid) will show that an appeal could be filed only against judgment, decree, sentence or final order passed by a Banking Court. Even review or revision is not permitted against interlocutory order, which does not dispose of the entire case, (Emphasis added). In the case of Pakistan Fisheries Ltd. v. United Bank Ltd. PLD 1993 SC 109 rel. At 121, Honourable Supreme Court has defined the term "interlocutory order" as "the order which is incidental to or a step in aid of a final decision". In the present case, the execution application filed by the respondent-Bank is still pending. The appellant has not filed any application under Order 21, rule 89, C.P.C. Before the Executing Court. On the contrary, their two applications were granted by the said Court and the appellants were allowed to match the highest bid offered by the respondent No,2. Their only grievance is that the time to deposit Rs,50 lacs was not extended on 25-6-2002 by the learned Executing Court which grievance now stands resolved by this Court when the appellants were granted extension up to 20-7-2002 but they failed. In this background, it cannot be said that there is any final order in the field against which instant appeal has been preferred. Subsections (1) and (6) of section 22 of the Ordinance, 2001 exclude such appeal from its purview. We are therefore, of the opinon that this appeal is not maintainable.
11. Secondly, as admitted by Mr. Zaki the judgment-debtors have not availed the opportunity of invoking the provisions of rule 89 of Order 21, C.P.C. Before the learned Single Judge in the execution proceedings and so no relief which is demanded here can be granted to them.
12. We are also impressed by the fact that the order accepting the highest bid of Shaikh Shahzad Ahmed and others was passed by learned Single Judge on 1-7-2002 and thereafter on 10-7-2002 this Court, by consent, allowed the judgment-debtors to deposit a sum of ' Rs,50 lacs in view of the order dated 20-6-2002 passed in Execution No,68 of 1999 has not been complied with up to date.
This goes to show that no purpose will be served nor the judgment-debtors are entitled for any further extension of time or leniency by the Court.
13. In the circumstances, this appeal is dismissed in limine alongwith listed application. However, the judgment-debtors will be at liberty to contest the execution proceedings if so advised.