| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 651 2017 SLD 651 2017 CLD 447 |
Lahore High Court
Execution First Appeal No. 1017 of 2016, decided on 28th September, 2016.
ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, JUSTICE, SHAHID KARIM, JUSTICE
Malik Sultan Amir Awan for Appellants. Muhammad Aqeel Malik for
Respondents
Execution First Appeal No. 1017 of 2016, decided on 28th September, 2016.
ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, JUSTICE, SHAHID KARIM, JUSTICE
Malik Sultan Amir Awan for Appellants. Muhammad Aqeel Malik for
Respondents
M/S. HANIF METAL STORE THROUGH PROPRIETOR AND OTHERS --AppellantS
VS
BANK OF PUNJAB THROUGH MANAGER AND OTHERS --RespondentS
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.XXI,R.54,60,151
Law: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)
Section: 14,15,19,19(7),20(c),22
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXI, R. 54 & S. 60---Execution of decree---Attachment of immovable property---Attachment of mortgaged property---Object and scope of attachment---Attachment of immovable property was a protective measure taken by an executing court to keep said property intact so as to enable the decree-holder to satisfy the decree therefrom---Object of attachment was also to give notice to the -debtor not to alienate his property and to the general public so as to not to accept any alienation from such a -debtor---Such precautionary and protective measures were not required regarding mortgaged properties, firstly for reason that when a mortgage decree was passed, there was adjudication on the footing that the property in question belonged to the mortgager and secondly in a mortgage decree, there was final adjudication regarding rights of the -debtor and executing court could not go behind said decree---In execution of a mortgage decree, only the incorporal right was brought to sale and not the physical property whereas in juxtaposition, in execution of a money-decree; the physical or the real property was brought to sale. Muhammad Shahid v. Sajida Khatoon and others 2004 MLD 296; Union Bank of the Middle East Ltd. v. Saad Carpets Ltd. 1986 MLD 482; Indian Bank, Kowur v. Nallam Veera Swamy and others 2014 AIR CC 2728 (AP) and Punjab and Sindh Bank v. State Bank of India 2002 (I) RCR (Civil) 273 rel. (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 15, 14 & 19---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O. XXI, R. 54 & S. 60---Procedure of Banking Court---Execution of decree of Banking Court---Sale of mortgaged property---Attachment of mortgaged property---No requirement for an order of attachment against a mortgaged property---Scope---Provisions of O. XXI, R. 54 or S. 60 of the C.P.C. did not require attachment of mortgaged property by the Banking Court, therefore, the same was not bound to attach mortgaged property before its sale in execution of decree of Banking Court---Mortgaged property was already secured, therefore, the Banking Court was not required to adopt the protective measure of…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492