Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 1379 2023 SLD 1379 2023 SCMR 890
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 335 and 336 of 2010, decided on 22nd February, 2022. Date of hearing: 22nd February, 2022. (Against the order Dated 25.05.2009 of Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in E.F.A. No. 91 of 2009)
Present: Ijaz ul Ahsan, Munib Akhtar and Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, JJ
Muhammad Asad Manzoor Butt, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in both cases). Tariq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court, Raja Muqsit Nawaz Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents.

KAUSER PARVEEN and another-----Appellants

VERSUS

KASB BANK and others-----Respondents

Law: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Section: 19

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 12(2)

(a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----S. 19---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2), O.XXI---Decree of Banking Court---Auction of mortgaged property by Bank---Co-owners of mortgaged property claiming fraud and objecting to auction of suit property---Held, that perusal of section 19 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 showed that once the decree of Banking Court was passed in favour of the bank, the decree by itself constituted and conferred sufficient power and authority on the bank to sell or cause to be sold any and all mortgaged properties of the -debtors along with their marketable titles---Banking Court was not bound to follow the procedure laid down in Order XXI of the C.P.C.; it could adopt any procedure in order to satisfy and execute the decree passed in favour of the respondent-Bank---Even otherwise, the auction was advertised and the bid of the auction purchaser for the suit property being the highest was accepted vide the Banking Courts order---Since second co-owner never took the ground that the decree was obtained fraudulently or that the auction purchaser had obtained the suit property fraudulently, he could not travel beyond his pleas taken before the lower fora and rely on the arguments raised by first co-owner---Even otherwise, second co-owner could not agitate the questions at present stage for the first time since he was not a party in the execution proceedings before the Banking Court---First co-owner in her objection petition admitted the fact that the suit property was mortgaged to the respondent-Bank; she did not raise any plea before the lower fora that the sale certificate should not be issued to defeat her proprietary interest in the suit property as well as the ground that she was unaware that the suit property had been auctioned off and sold in favour of the auction purchaser---First co-owner therefore could not, at present stage, raise a ground which she had not taken before the Banking Court---It did not appeal to reason that the first co-owner was unaware of the fact that the suit property was mortgaged; that a suit for recovery was pending against…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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