' This F.A.O. Arises out of the order dated 6-10-2000 passed by the Judge, Banking Court, whereby the schedule of auction of the hypothecated/mortgaged property in favour of the decree-holder Bank/respondent was accepted.
2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are to the effect that the plaintiff Citibank respondent herein had filed suit for recovery of amount of Rs.21,04,016.59 with mark-up till realization of the said amount in the Court of Judge Banking Court No,2, Lahore. The appellant filed an application for leave to defend the suit which was dismissed for non-prosecution and the suit was decreed ex parte in favour of the decree-holder/ Citibank-respondent.
3. The decree-holder filed an execution petition on 10-8-2000 in the Banking Court with regard to the hypothecated/mortgaged property and the executing Court issued notice under Order 21, rule 66, C.P.C. To the judgment-debtor for 22-9-2002.
4. The appellant filed an objection petition on the said date and the case was fixed .For arguments but the appellant/judgment-debtor absented from the Court and the objection petition had been dismissed in default and the Court appointed one Ch. Nazir Ahmad, Advocate, as Court-auctioneer for auction of the mortgaged property. The Court-auctioneer submitted the auction schedule in the Court which was affirmed vide order dated 6-10-2000.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The main stress of arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant is that notice to the judgment-debtor appellant had not been issued under Order 21, rule 66, C.P.C. And also auction schedule was not published.
6. From the perusal of the order sheet annexed with this appeal, it is clearly indicative that notices under Order 21, rule 66 to the judgment-debtor was issued for 22-6-2000 and on the said date the judgment-debtor-appellant had filed an objection petition and the case was adjourned for arguments to 26-9-2000 and on the said date the judgment-debtor did not appear and his objection petition was dismissed for non-prosecution and as a result thereto Court-auctioneer was appointed to submit his schedule for auction. The objection of the appellant is belied from the record of the executing Court, wherein, it is established that the required notice under rule 86 of Order 21 had been issued, in response to the appellant appeared in the Court and filed objection petition.
7. The order of dismissal of objection petition dated 26-9-2000 has not been challenged by the appellant. The Court had only approved the auction schedule of the hypothecated/ mortgaged property and auction proceedings have not held as yet. The appellant has not been prejudiced by the impugned order passed by the Banking Court.
8. The Court auctioneer had published the schedule fixing the reserve price of the alleged auctioned property as Rs.20,00,000 (rupees twenty lac) and fulfilled the requirements of the rule.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, we find that the appellant has failed to persuade this Court to interfere with the impugned order.
10. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal being devoid of force is dismissed in limine.