| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2003 SLG 769 2003 SLD 769 2003 CLD 550 |
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No.2348 of 2001, decision dated: 14-04-2002
SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE SYED ALI ASLAM DAFRI, JUSTICE
Muhammad Arshad Iqbal for Petitioner. Arshad Mobin for
Respondents Nos.3 and 4. Aftab Hussain Soomro for
Respondent No. 5
Constitutional Petition No.2348 of 2001, decision dated: 14-04-2002
SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE SYED ALI ASLAM DAFRI, JUSTICE
Muhammad Arshad Iqbal for Petitioner. Arshad Mobin for
Respondents Nos.3 and 4. Aftab Hussain Soomro for
Respondent No. 5
Dr. Mrs. ZULAIKHA MAHMOOD
VS
PRESIDING OFFICER, BANKING COURT. NO. 1, KARACHI and 4 others
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: R-84,O.XXI,Rr.84,89,90,91
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--O.XXI, Rr. 84, 89, 90 & 91 Provisions of O.XXI, Rr. 89, 90 & 91, C.P.C. Applicability Such provisions would come into play after acceptance of an offer of sale of property by Court Expression "may apply to have the sale set aside" as used in O.XXI, R.89, C.P.C. clearly showed that there must be an order of Court, which was required to be set aside on certain grounds In absence of an order accepting bid of a person, no right could be deemed to have arisen in his favour. ORDER The petitioner has called in question an order of the learned Banking Court directing re auction of property proposed to be sold in execution of a decree. It appears that after publication of a sale proclamation offers were invited for purchase of an apartment owned by the judgment debtor. Three offers were received on the initial date of offer i.e. 28 8 2001 and the petitioner's offer of Rs.3,80,000 seems to be the highest. However, the learned Judge apparently considering, prima facie, that the offer was low directed that the market value of the property be ascertained. Thereafter, respondent No.5 submitted an application offering to purchase the property for Rs.4,05,000. The learned Banking Court recorded an order to the effect that the offer of respondent No.5 could not be accepted but if the aforesaid respondent agreed to pay the cost of auction, re auction could be ordered. The respondent No.5 agreed to do so whereupon the .Court passed the impugned order. Mr. Muhammad Arshad Iqbal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that after the petitioner's bid was found to be highest and he had deposited the entire sale consideration in terms of Order 21, rule 85, Civil Procedure Code his bid had to be accepted and a sale was required to be made on the basis of such bid unless it…
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