Case Details

Citation(s)
2005 SLG 1547 2005 SLD 1547 2005 CLD 236
Lahore High Court
F.A. O. No. 115 of 2003, heard on 10-11-2004.
SYED, JAMSHED ALI AND MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JJ
Syed Sajjad Hussain Rizvi for Appellants. Mushtaq Ahmed Khan for
Respondent No. 1. Tasawar Hussain Qureshi and Ghulam Shabbir Thaheem for
Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

Messrs ASIF BROTHERS, JHANG SADDAR through Sole Proprietor and another

VS

. MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED through Manager and 3 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)-------Ss.14, 15 & 19---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, Rr.66, 69, 89 & 90---Execution of decree---Auction of mortgaged property---Application under O.XXI, Rr.89 & 90, C.P.C. by the Judgment-debtors---Consideration of such application by the executing Court ---Principles--¬Proclamation, though did not specify the amount to be recovered yet the -debtors had deposited in shape of a Bank draft of the amount which was claimed in execution petition---Judgment-debtors had also undertaken to pay any additional amount due as determined by the executing Court under the decree and had also undertaken to deposit 5% of the bid money---Such an application, held, lay as a matter of right and the only constraint to consider the application was that the -debtor had also moved an application under O.XXI, R.90, C.P.C. and in accordance with the provisions of O.XXI, R.89, C.P.C., the -debtors were not entitled to prosecute the application under R.90 of O.XXI, C.P.C. but were entitled to a choice to prosecute one of the two applications---Even if the application under O.XXI, R.89, C.P.C. was deficient insmuch as, that with the said application 5% of the bid moneys for payment to the purchaser was not deposited, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, when another property of the -debtors had already been sold for a sum Which was not disputed, the -debtors were prepared to discharge the entire liability in accordance with orders of the Court and their bona fides to discharge the entire liability, consideration of the said application could be deferred till the deposit of 5% of the sale price by the -debtors and the executing Court could direct deposit of 5% of the purchase money as offered by the -debtors---Such an application could even be considered under the inherent powers of the Court---Under O.XXI, R.69, C.P.C., an executing Court had, in its discretion, necessary power to adjourn the sale and such a power would be available to an Executing Court, even After the sale before the same was confirmed for the simple reason that a Court sale unless confirmed remained inchoate---All the…
🔒
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