| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 639 2016 SLD 639 2016 CLD 480 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Review Petition No. 383 of 2005 in Civil Appeal No.670 of 2002, decided on 5th January, 2016. Date of hearing:3rd November, 2015.
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, SH. AZMAT SAEED AND MAQBOOL BAQAR, JJ
Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.Khalid Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 1.
Civil Review Petition No. 383 of 2005 in Civil Appeal No.670 of 2002, decided on 5th January, 2016. Date of hearing:3rd November, 2015.
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, SH. AZMAT SAEED AND MAQBOOL BAQAR, JJ
Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.Khalid Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 1.
ZAKARIA GHANI and 4 othersVsMUHAMMAD IKHLAQ MEMON and 8 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXI, Rr. 89 & 90---Sale of immoveable property in execution of a decree---Application to set aside such sale either under O. XXI, R.89 or under O. XXI, R. 90, C.P.C.---Distinction between O. XXI, R.89, C.P.C. and O. XXI, R. 90, C.P.C stated. Great deal of difference existed between O. XXI, R. 89, C.P.C and O. XXI, R. 90, C.P.C. Under Order XXI, Rule 89 a debtor was not obligated to show any legal infirmity in the order of sale. He had an unqualified right to have the sale set aside provided he complied with the conditions laid down therein, namely, that he should deposit the full decretal amount in court plus 5% to be paid to the auction purchaser. The time period for making such an application was 30 days. Order XXI, Rule 90, C.P.C. proceeded on a different basis. In order to succeed it was mandatory for the -debtor to satisfy the court, on the merits, that the sale should be set aside on the ground of a material irregularity, or fraud, in publishing or conducting it. Another condition was prescribed by means of the proviso thereto which stipulated that no sale shall be set aside on the ground of irregularity or fraud unless, upon the facts proved before the Court, it was established that the -debtor had sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or fraud. A mere allegation was not sufficient. It has to be established that not merely an irregularity but a material irregularity had taken place, or, in the alternative, that fraud had been perpetrated in the process of carrying out the sale. Even if these conditions were complied with the -debtor must satisfy the court that he had sustained a substantial injury by reason thereof. Yet another condition was prescribed by the second proviso which stated that no application shall be entertained in terms of this provision of law unless and until the debtor deposited an amount equal to 20% of the sum realized at the sale or furnish such security as the court may direct. (b) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)--- ----S. 18 [since repealed]--- Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI…