MCB BANK LIMITED Versus NASEEM AKHTAR Mian Khurram Qureshi Hashmi

ORDER

This appeal is directed against order dated 24.04.2013 passed by the learned Judge Banking Court, Multan whereby the application filed by the objector, Muhammad Nadeem, was accepted and the order passed for proceedings with the auction of the property in dispute was withdrawn.

2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs.100,179/- against respondents Nos.1 and 2 which was decreed on 22.02.2011. On 25.11.2011 learned Judge Banking Court appointed a court auctioneer for initiating the auction proceedings against the alleged mortgaged property bearing house No.1167/A/6 Data Colony, Street No.5, Grass Mandi Tehsil and District Multan which was owned by respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 filed on application) under section 19 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 objecting to the sale of the said property on the ground that he had purchased the same from respondent No.2 through a sale deed registered on 06.07.2009. It was further stated in the said application that the inquiries made by the objector from the Registrar Office show that the property was not under the mortgage charge of any financial institution. Learned Judge Banking Court after hearing the arguments came to the conclusion that the property in question was not mortgaged with the appellant bank and accordingly allowed the said application on 24.04.2013.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant bank contended that bank's lien was marked in the office of Excise and Taxation Department and that respondent No.2 had executed a power of attorney in respect of the property in question in favour of the appellant bank. Learned counsel was repeatedly asked by this Court to show the documents on the basis of which the bank's mortgage charge was marked in the record of the Excise and Taxation Department but he could not pin point to any document on the record on the basis of which the mortgage on the property in question was being claimed by the appellant bank. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel, we are of the opinion that learned Judge, Banking Court has rightly held that the property in question was not mortgaged with the appellant bank and that the auction process could not continue against the said property. Respondent No.3 had purchased the property in question much earlier to the filing of the suit and, therefore, holds a valid title over the same.

4. In the result, this appeal having no merit is dismissed.

KMZ/M-152/L Appeal dismissed.