' Precisely stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that pursuant to the passing a decree for the recovery of Rs,64,43,625 on 20-12-2001, against the appellants, the execution proceedings were initiated by the learned Judge, Banking Court, wherein the respondent-Bank filed a Fard Taaliqa containing the list of certain properties owned by judgment- debtoRs, During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the respondent-Bank filed an application under section 19(3) of Ordinance No,XLVI of 2001, praying therein that the decree-holder be . Allowed to sell the properties at their own, which application was resisted by the appellant. The appellant filed an application under section 19(7) of the aforenoted Ordinance of 2001, for the fixation of the reserve price of the properties. Ultimately, the learned Judge, Banking Court allowed the aforenoted application, filed by the bank, and it was permitted to sell the properties of its own and the application filed by the appellants was disposed of with certain observations vide order dated 8-6-2002. Subsequently, the appellants filed another application, under section 19(7) of Ordinance No,XLVI of 2001 read with Order XXI, Rules 58, 62 and section 12(2), C.P.C. Praying for the dismissal of the execution application or in the alternative to sell the properties through the learned executing Court. The said application was opposed by the respondent-Bank and the learned Judge, Banking Court rejected the said application vide order dated 13-7-2002, hence the present appeal, assailing the orders dated 8-6-2002 and 13-7-2002.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the decree-holder bank is selling the properties of the judgment-debtors at a throw away price, as they have been permitted to sell the properties at their own and the properties, which were, at one time, evaluated at Rs,15.560 million in the year 1996 and the value of which have now appreciated to Rs,20 million has been planned to be sold at a paltry sum of Rs,55 lacs in connivance with the bank officials. The learned counsel in the above perspective, submits that he would be satisfied if the properties mentioned in "Fard Taaliqa" is sold/auctioned by the learned executing Court itself and the decretal amount may be recovered out of the sale proceeds. Confronted with the above, the learned counsel, after defending the impugned orders for some time, has agreed to the aforesaid course of action and has additionally submitted that the appellants may be allowed sufficient time to sell the properties of their own accord and then to satisfy the decree.
3. Although the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has stated, as noted above, that the appellants may be allowed to sell the properties, yet we are of the view that the proper course, in the present circumstances, would be to direct the learned executing Court to sell/auction the properties under his supervision and through Court A auction, as in that case, neither of the parties would have an edge over the other. The parties, even in the execution proceedings, are to be treated alike and the rights of decree-holder should not be preferred over the interest of the judgment-debtoRs, To our mind on the one hand it is the function of the learned executing Court to execute the decree, but on the other hand, it is also the duty of the executing Court to protect the rights of the judgment-debtors which are not to be jeopradised and sacrificed at the altar of the execution of the decree. Furthermore proper price should be fetched through the sale of the properties and the properties of the judgment-debtors are not to be sold at a throw away and paltry price with the connivance of some unscrupulous persons, may be decree-holder or its representatives. In view of the above, we are inclined to direct the learned executing Court to sell the properties through the Court Auctioneer.
4. In the above back drop, the present appeal is allowed and the orders dated 8-6-2002 and 13-7- 2002 are set aside with no order as to costs. The result would be that the decretal amount shall now be recovered through the sale of the properties, mentioned in the Fard Taaliqa, and the learned executing Court is directed to sell the said properties, through open auction, by appointment of Court Auctioneer, of course, in accordance with law. The appellants are also allowed to bring any prospective buyer before the learned Banking Court for the purchase of the said properties and in the said eventuality the learned Banking Court shall decide, after hearing the decree-holder bank, as to whether the properties in question would be sold to the said buyer or through open auction.