| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 506 2018 SLD 506 2018 PLD 91 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petiiton No. 2064 of 2016, decided & hearing on 8-12-2017. (Against judgment Dated 28-04-2016 of Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawarpur passed in EFA No. 4 of 2016).
EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, JUSTICE, DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, JUSTICE, IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE
M. Akram Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rafaqat H. Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioiner. Ch. Faiz Ahmed Sanghera, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 1. Ch.Ali Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 2.
Civil Petiiton No. 2064 of 2016, decided & hearing on 8-12-2017. (Against judgment Dated 28-04-2016 of Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawarpur passed in EFA No. 4 of 2016).
EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, JUSTICE, DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, JUSTICE, IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE
M. Akram Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rafaqat H. Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioiner. Ch. Faiz Ahmed Sanghera, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 1. Ch.Ali Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 2.
SIRAJ AHMED THROUGH LRS.
VS
FAYSAL BANK LIMITED AND OTHERS
Law:
Section:
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXI, Rr. 66, 67, 68 & 89---Auction proceedings---Legal and procedural errors during execution proceedings---Reserve price for the property did not appear to have been fixed---Nothing on record indicated that auction was widely publicized through advertisement in the newspapers and affixation of the proclamation/notices on and in the vicinity of the property to be auctioned and on the notice board of the Court house---Subject property was valuable agricultural property and could have attracted many buyers, had it been properly advertised, but the notice of auction was only published in an unknown newspaper, that too a day before the auction, because of which only three persons participated in the auction proceedings---Perusal of notice of auction showed that the same did not take place at the location of the property which was sought to be sold---On the contrary, the auction was held in the premises of the Bank, i.e. the decree holder, which by itself made it highly suspect---Evaluation report prepared by an approved firm of Engineers and Architects was placed on record which showed that the property was valued much in excess of the amount paid by the auction purchaser---Subject property was sold at a throwaway price in an auction which did not prima facie appear to be fair, transparent and above board---Serious legal and procedural errors were committed at all stages of the execution proceedings which had caused serious miscarriage of justice---Supreme Court remanded the case to the Executing Court (Banking Court) with the directions that a fresh auction shall be conducted in accordance with law; that the auction purchaser shall have the right to participate in the fresh auction and he shall also be given the right of first refusal if he matched the highest bid; that in the event the auction purchaser did not wish to participate in the fresh auction or exercise his right of first refusal, the Bank shall refund to him the entire amount paid by him together with mark up at the rate fixed by the State Bank from the date of the auction till the amount was refunded to him, and that the Bank shall also have the right to…
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