' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The respondent-Bank, brought a suit for recovery of Rs.6,02,088 against respondent No,2 Sh. Abdur Rashid, which was decreed on 12-8-2000, to the tune of the suit amount with costs including the mark-up till the realization of the decretal amount. In the satisfaction of the decree, the respondent-Bank earlier applied for the attachment of some properties belonging to Sh. Abdur Rashid, but certain persons, filed objections to this attachment, which are pending adjudication. Thereafter, the bank sought the attachment of the Property bearing No,690/1, Block W, Phase-III, D.H.A., Lahore, on 25-6-2001. The attachment order was passed on 4-7-2001, the warrants of attachment were issued, and the property was attached on 17-7-2001. The present appellant, brought an objection petition claiming that, Sh. Abdur Rashid, vide an agreement dated. 10-7-2001, had agreed to sell the said property for a consideration of Rs.43,00,000 to her, which amount Sh.
Abdur Rashid needed for the purposes of satisfaction of another decree, passed against him and in favour of the Citibank, thus, on the execution of this agreement; all the requisite documents needed for the transfer of the property from the name of Abdur Rashid, in favour of the appellant, were submitted to the Housing Society; proceedings with regard to finalization of transfer are still on, therefore, Sh. Abdur Rashid is not the owner of the property, which belongs to the appellant. This application was contested by the respondent-Bank, which came up for hearing on 1-11-2001 and was dismissed. The appellant did not challenge this order in appeal etc, rather subsequently, on 14- 12-2001, moved another application on the same grounds. The application was resisted by the respondent-Bank, and has been dismissed by the learned Banking Court, through the impugned order dated 4-2-2002.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that, the question, whether the property had been purchased by Mst. Atia Arshad in good faith and without being aware of the decree against Abdur Rashid, is question of fact, which could only be resolved after framing of issues and recording of evidence. It is further contended that in fact the property had been attached on 17-7-2001, whereas the appellant had purchased the property through the agreement to sell dated 10-7-2001, which was prior in time to the attachment, and the process had been duly initiated with the D.H.A., for the completion of the transaction, resultantly, the property for all intents and purposes vested in favour of the appellant w.e.f. 10-7-2001, and could not have been attached or sold in execution of the decree against Sh. Abdur Rashid.
3. Confronted with the above, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has pointed out that, vide order dated 1-11-2001, earlier application of the appellant was dismissed. This order had never been challenged by the appellant any further, resultantly, such order having attained finality, would operate res judicata. It is further stated that Muhammad Arshad, husband of the appellant had deposited Rs.1,10,000 with the respondent-Bank and gave four post-dated cheques of Rs.1,00,000 each for the satisfaction of the decree; this means that she had accepted the liability.
4. We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and are dismissing the appeal mainly for the reason that, earlier objection petition of the appellant was dismissed vide order dated 1-11-2001 and she did not challenge this order, thus the same had attained finality and under the principle of res judicata, second application on the same premises was barred by law. Besides, we have taken notice of the conduct of the husband of the appellant, who is present in the Court and has admitted the deposit of the amount and also issuance of certain cheques. But these facts have been concealed in the appeal before us. Resultantly, the appellant is not entitled to any relief. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed, however, as the appellant has allegedly purchased the property for a considerable amount and the decretal amount is not very substantial, therefore, we grant the appellant two months' time from today, to satisfy the decree of the respondent-Bank against Abdur Rashid, so as to save her property, otherwise, the Executing Court shall be free to sell the property through auction.