' The respondent-Bank filed a suit for recovery against Muhammad Aslam in which a decree to the tune of Rs.2,60,71,267.67 was passed. In execution of the decree, the respondent-Bank got attached the shop of the judgment-debtor bearing No,164, Block No,8, Sargodha and was ordered to be put to auction, when the petitioner, who is son of the judgment-debtor Muhammad Aslam, applied to the Court that the shop, in fact, had been gifted to him by his father orally and subsequently a memorandum of gift was executed and registered, the effect of which has also been given in the Revenue Record. This objection petition has been dismissed through the impugned order dated 2- 11-2001. Hence, this appeal.
2. The learned 'executing Court has rightly observed that the appellant had failed to place on record the gift document in his favour and that the Revenue Record does not show his name, and in the Jamabandi as well as mutation it is the name of Muhammad Akram to whom gift is shown to have been made. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that Muhammad Munir Akram appellant is the only son of Muhammad Aslam and it is he to whom the gift was made. The appellant now has placed on record a memorandum of gift dated 17-2-1998 in which the gift, according to him, is of the disputed shop, has been made to him.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that, firstly, this document had not been placed on the record of the executing Court which was necessary, to support his case. Besides the perusal of document reveals that it does not pertain to the shop, rather it is with regard to some house. Moreover, the area of the shop, according to PT-1, is 160 sq. Ft., whereas in the gift deed it is 196 sq. Ft. The only argument as it pertains to the same Khasra number, therefore, necessarily the gift is with regard to the shop in question, does not have any force for the reason that it is for the house and not for the shop. Moreover there is no mention of the number of the house in the sale- deed, only Khasra number is mentioned which would have no significance. Moreover according to the Revenue Record the gift of the said Khasra number is in favour of Akram and not Munir Akram, the appellant.
4. Resultantly, no case is made out. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.