Law:

Section:

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)------Ss. 9, 19 & 22---Appeal to High Court---Suit for recovery of loan---Execution of decree---Plaintiff-Bank filed suit for recovery of loan against borrowers and appellant was a guarantor of one of the borrowers---Suit having been decreed, plaintiff-Bank initiated execution proceedings against appellant/guarantor and the borrowers---Properties belonging to appellant/guarantor and borrowers, which were mortgaged, were put to auction---Court Auctioneers filled schedule of auction to which appellant/ guarantor filed objections before Banking Court for exclusion of his property from auction schedule, which objection was dismissed---Validity---Properties belonging to borrowers, could not be auctioned due to non participation of bidders in respect of their properties but property of appellant/guarantor was auctioned and was confirmed in the name of successful bidder---Appellant levelled certain allegations against Court Auctioneers---Record had shown that at the time of auction, Court Auctioneers, Bank Officials and appellant were present at the spot---Satisfaction of decree against customer/borrower should be through sale/auction of properties of borrowers/principal debtors, however if thereafter decree was not satisfied., the properties of the guarantor could be sold---Properties belonging to borrowers which were put to auction could not be auctioned due to non-availability of the bidders, thus property belonging to appellant/guarantor was put to auction, which was legal as liability was co-extensive qua principal debtor/borrowers and the guarantor---Properties belonging to principal debtors having remained un-auctioned, Court Auctioneers were left with no choice but to sell the property of appellant/guarantor---No illegality having been committed by the Court Auctioneers, impugned order of Executing Court, held, was unexceptionable. JUDGMENT HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J. ---The backdrop of this appeal is that a decree for a sum of Rs. 46,29,221.71 including mark-up and costs were passed against the appellant as well as respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4 and in favour of Muslim Commercial Bank, respondent…

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