Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 66,89,90,91

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

Section: 54,65,66,90

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXI, R. 66---Public auction---Terms “Proclamation” and “auction schedule”---Scope---Term “auction schedule” only gives indication of schedule/timing/date of auction, rather than the terms and conditions mentioned therein---Term “proclamation” is a comprehensive term as approved proclamation includes both the schedule of auction sale, as well terms and conditions of auction. (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----S. 19---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXI, Rr. 54, 65, 66, 90---Execution of decree---Attachment proceedings---Sale of property---Public auction---Security, non-deposit of---Effect---Judgment debtor objected to auction proceedings---Contention of decree holder was that objections were not maintainable as no security was deposited by debtor---Validity---As per second proviso to O. XXI, R. 90, C.P.C. until and unless debtor deposited an amount equal to 20% of sum realized at sale or had furnished such security as the Court directed, objection was not maintainable even when there was material illegality and irregularity in auction proceedings---Requirement to deposit 20% of auction price or such other security as directed by Court along with application under O. XXI, R. 90, C.P.C. was mandatory---Any application that failed to fulfill such requirement could not be entertained and was liable to be dismissed by Court---Substantial compliance of provisions of O. XXI, R. 54(2), C.P.C. was enough for the purposes of sale proclamation and attracting prospective bidders---In absence of any specific complaint in such regard, entire auction proceedings could not be vitiated by Court---Necessary for objectors to raise in objection petitions not only irregularity or fraud in auction proceedings but they also had to prove before Court that they sustained substantial injury as a result of such irregularity or fraud---High Court declined to interfere in auction proceedings---Petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Faysal Bank Limited v. Sajjad Aslam and others 2022 CLD 123; Zakaria Ghani v. Muhammad Ikhlaq Memon PLD 2016 SC 229; Muhammad Khalil v. Faisal M.B. Corporation…

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