Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 2066 2004 SLD 2066 2004 CLD 982
Lahore High Court
F.A.O. No. 113 of 2002, decision dated: 1st July, 2003.
MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ
Khizar Abbas Khan for Appellants. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan for
Respondent No. 1. Mukhtar Abbas for Auction Purchaser.

Mian MUHAMMAD BAKHSH and another --Appellants

VS

. MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED and 2 others --Respondents

Law:

Section:

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) Ss. 7 & 19(7) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, Rr.58 & 62 Execution of decree Sale of mortgaged property under auction No description as to location o f property was given in the proclamation of auction Appellants in the objection petition had claimed ownership of the property and described the same as an undivided one of which debtor could not have been owner of a specific portion until and unless it was partitioned Questions raised by the parties required evidence to come to a correct finding Held, despite the absence of description of the property in the proclamation, no inquiry for the purposes of finding out the exact property that was subject-¬matter of the mortgage and whether that was put to auction, was undertaken by the executing Court and the objection of the appellant was dismissed in a summary manner which was unwarranted Impugned order was set aside with direction to the Executing Court to determine factual controversy based on facts coming on record. ORDER The respondent Bank brought a suit for recovery against Muhammad Zakaullah Khan respondent No.2 which was decreed on 31 10 2000 to the tune of Rs.2,54,730. In execution proceedings, for the satisfaction of the decree, some mortgaged property measuring 13 Marlas in Khata No.29/30 situated in Mauza Chokan, Tehsil and District Jhang, was attached and the same was put to auction. In the proclamation of auction there is no description of the property as to where it is located. There is neither the boundary nor the specified dimensions of 13 Marlas of the area. However, the property has been put to auction by the Court Auctioneer and the has been purchased by respondent No.3 who applied for the confirmation of the sale when the respondents filed objection claiming that the property, which has been put to auction, in fact, is owned by them and is situated in Khata No. 12 rather Khata No.29/30. Moreover it is their case that this is…
🔒
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