KAUSER PARVEEN vs KASB BANK S — 2023 CLD 589 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.

KAUSER PARVEEN VS KASB BANK S. 19---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2) & O.XXI---Decree of Banking Court---Auction of mortgaged property by Bank--- Co-owners of mortgaged property claiming fraud and objecting to auction of suit property---Held, that perusal of section 19 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 showed that once the decree of Banking Court was passed in favour of the bank, the decree by itself constituted and conferred sufficient power and authority on the bank to sell or cause to be sold any and all mortgaged properties of the judgment-debtors along with their marketable titles---Banking Court was not bound to follow the procedure laid down in Order XXI of the C.P.C.; it could adopt any procedure in order to satisfy and execute the decree passed in favour of the respondent-Bank---Even otherwise, the auction was advertised and the bid of the auction purchaser for the suit property being the highest was accepted vide the Banking Court's order---Since second co-owner never took the ground that the decree was obtained fraudulently or that the auction purchaser had obtained the suit property fraudulently, he could not travel beyond his pleas taken before the lower fora and rely on the arguments raised by first co-owner---Even otherwise, second co-owner could not agitate the questions at present stage for the first time since he was not a party in the execution proceedings before the Banking Court---First co-owner in her objection petition admitted the fact that the suit property was mortgaged to the respondent-Bank; she did not raise any plea before the lower fora that the sale certificate should not be issued to defeat her proprietary interest in the suit property as well as the ground that she was unaware that the suit property had been auctioned off and sold in favour of the auction purchaser---First co-owner therefore could not, at present stage, raise a ground which she had not taken before the Banking Court---It did not appeal to reason that the first co-owner was unaware of the fact that the suit property was mortgaged; that a suit for recovery was pending against the suit property, and that her own father, brothers and sisters were judgment-debtors in the said suit---Since the sale certificate had been issued by the Banking Court after the objection petition of first co-owner was dismissed, the sale certificate could not be set aside on the ground that both the co-owners' proprietary right in the suit property would be affected---Appeals filed by the co-owners were dismissed.

KAUSER PARVEEN vs KASB BANK S — 2023 CLD 589 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 CLD