| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 1209 2025 SLD 1209 = 2025 SCMR 773 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C. A. No. 613 of 2020 and C.M.A. No. 3760 of 2022, decided on 3rd March, 2025. (Against the judgment dated 05.03.2020 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in C.R. No. 647-A of 2009). C.M.A. No. 3760 of 2022. (For setting aside ex-parte order).
PRESENT: SHAHID WAHEED AND MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, JJ
Sardar Aman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. M. Siddique Aman, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
C. A. No. 613 of 2020 and C.M.A. No. 3760 of 2022, decided on 3rd March, 2025. (Against the judgment dated 05.03.2020 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in C.R. No. 647-A of 2009). C.M.A. No. 3760 of 2022. (For setting aside ex-parte order).
PRESENT: SHAHID WAHEED AND MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, JJ
Sardar Aman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. M. Siddique Aman, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
ZARIN KHAN AND OTHERS ---APPELLANTS
VS
CHAIRMAN, EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD, LAHORE AND OTHERS ---RESPONDENTS
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42, 54
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss.42 & 54---Suit for declaration and injunction---Auction of land---Matching bid of highest bid---No concluded contact vesting interest in property---Appellants/plaintiffs were occupants of suit land who were given option to match the highest bid during auction of suit land---Suit filed by appellants/plaintiffs against respondent/Evacuee Trust Property Board was dismissed by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court decreed the same against respondent/Board---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court---Validity---Bid at an auction was only an offer and without confirmation or approval it did not create any right in the property in favour of successful bidder---By matching bid of the highest bidder, appellants/plaintiffs merely stepped into their shoes---Status of appellants/plaintiffs upon exercising the option was no different from the highest bidder---Decision was made to re-auction suit land, and there was nothing preventing appellants/plaintiffs from participating in auction---Rejecting of highest bid and order of re-auction had afforded equal opportunity to persons whose bid had been rejected---Principles of natural justice were not deemed to have been violated---Acceptance of highest bid was subject to approval or confirmation by competent authority and unless and until such approval was granted or confirmation was made there was no concluded contract vesting the highest bidder with an interest in the property subjected to auction---Since approval contemplated by terms and conditions of auction was never issued in favour of appellants/plaintiffs, they were not entitled to a declaration to the effect that respondent/ETPB was legally bound to receive remaining amount of the highest bid and vested the appellants/plaintiffs with ownership rights in suit land---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court---Appeal was dismissed.Javed Iqbal Abbasi and Company v. Province of Punjab 1996 SCMR 1433; Captain-PQ Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. A.W. Brothers 2004 SCMR 1956 and Afzal Maqsood Butt v. Banking Court No.2, Lahore PLD 2005…