Qazi HUMAYUN vs Mst — 2023 CLD 1184 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Qazi HUMAYUN VS Mst. SABIHA QAYUM O. XXI, R. 90---Execution of decree in favour of Bank---Auction proceedings---Objection petition regarding fraud in the passing of the decree and the sale carried out there-under---Judgment debtor in question was alive at the time of the compromise decree as well as the finalization of the sale of his share in the mortgaged property---Said judgment debtor did not challenge any of the actions taken in the proceedings leading to the decree and its realization in favour of the respondent decree holder Bank until his death on 08.10.2006---However, on 08.12.2007 his heirs i.e. respondents filed an application under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the C.P.C. alleging fraud in the passing of the decree and the sale carried out there-under---Held, that whereas the respondents disputed the compromise decree they brought no grievance against it before the Supreme Court---Moreover, the respondents' objections fail to disclose particulars of any fraud, illegality or irregularity alleged against the co-judgment-debtors one of whom was the petitioner before the Court---Present matter pertained to a decree passed in 1981 and satisfied in 2001 by sale of the shares of all nine co-owners of the mortgaged property accomplished through their compromise with the decree holder Bank---Predecessor of the respondents never challenged the decree nor the execution of the decree during his life time; he was aware of the proceedings because he was the Managing Director of the company that had committed default in repayment of loans to the respondent decree holder Bank---Decree was ultimately settled through contribution by all the judgment debtors, namely, the nine co-owners of the mortgaged property sold under the decree to settle the liability of the judgment debtor company---Respondents and their predecessor waited for six years to challenge in 2007 the sale of the mortgaged property effected in 2001---No explanation for the delay occasioned had been given by the respondents---Respondents belatedly approached the executing Court in 2007 to incompetently dispute the consent decree passed by the Supreme Court in the year 2000 before the wrong forum---In any event, the said objections failed to disclose any fraud committed by the other judgment debtors including the petitioner and decree holder Bank---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed.

Qazi HUMAYUN vs Mst — 2023 CLD 1184 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 CLD