' In a suit for recovery filed by the Allied Bank of Pakistan (respondent No,1) against the defendants/ respondents, a decree was passed for a sum of Rs,35,51,641 on 12-4-1997 by the learned Banking Court. In execution of the said decree, Plots Nos,113, 114 and 115 of Islam Block, Azam Garden Scheme, Multan Road, Lahore were sought to be sold through auction by the Banking Court, when the petitioners herein filed an objection petition under Order XXI, rule 58, C.P.C. On the ground that they were owners of the said plots vide. Sale-deed dated 24-3-1992 and the said plots be deleted from the auction proceedings. The objection petition was dismissed by the learned Banking Court vide order dated 22-6-1998 .Taking the view that the plots in question had been mortgaged with the decree-holder/bank since 1990 and such sale in favour of the petitioners could not defeat the execution proceedings. This order has been challenged through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioners were not made party to the suit although they were vendees of the plots and that they being bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration, they cannot be made to suffer.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents have been heard who support the order passed by the learned Banking Court.
3. Undisputedly, the plots had been mortgaged with the decree-holder/bank since 1990 as security for the financial facility (it is so' averred in paragraph No,3 of the plaint). The sale-deed relied upon by the petitioners are of latter date i,e, 24-3-1992, the property was, thus, encumbered at the time of the sale in favour of the petitioners and was not free of charge. Such a transaction cannot be claimed a bona fide as the petitioners on due enquiry would have known of the fact -of mortgage and encumbrances. They did not act with due care in the matter.
4. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel that the decree has been obtained by the bank without impleading the petitioners is concerned, it has no merit inasmuch as the decree-holder bank proceeded on the basis of record available with it according to which, the disputed property was mortgaged with it. Any dealing by the mortgagor/judgment-debtors would not have .Come to its knowledge unless disclosed by the mortgagoRs, The decree-holder bank, thus, acted in accordance with law in suing only the parties to the transactions with it. In view of the admitted facts i,e, the mortgage of the property and the sale claimed by the petitioners being of a latter date, no further investigation was warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The objection petition has rightly been dismissed by the learned Banking Court.
' For the above reasons, this petition has no merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.