MUHAMMAD SAEED Versus KHAN AURANG ZAIB

ORDER

JAWAD HASSAN, J.--- Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the Petitioner has assailed the vires of impugned orders dated 10.06.2024 and 15.06.2024 passed by Civil Judge, Rawalpindi and Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi respectively.

2. When confronted how writ is maintainable because once a sales certificate is issued, valuable rights have been accrued in favour of the auction purchase, learned counsel for the Petitioner has reiterated the submissions already made in this petition and could not give any plausible answer.

3. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 has also vehemently opposed this petition by submitting that both the Courts below have acted with judicious mind while dealing with the matter which needs no interference by this Court.

4. Arguments heard. Record perused.

5. Admittedly, the Petitioner is a surety for execution of judgment and decree dated 05.10.2015 passed in favour of the Respondent No. 1 / Decree Holder against the Respondent No.2 and the said decree has subsequently been satisfied by the Respondent No.2/Judgment Debtor as is evident from order dated 19.02.2024. The Petitioner has filed an application under Order XXI, Rule 89 of the C.P.C. for release of his property but the same has been dismissed by the Civil Judge on the ground that sale of the said property has been confirmed in favour of successful bidder, vide order dated 10.06.2024, against which his appeal has also been dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court through order dated 15.06.2024 by holding that the matter of alleged belated compromise appears to be aimed at depriving the auction purchaser of his valuable rights that accrued to him after confirmation of sale, which must be due to increase in market value of the subject property. The Lower Appellate Court has also observed that at this belated stage, if the auction purchaser is deprived of the property he purchased at auction sale some five years ago, for a considerable amount, shall be highly unjustified.

6. It is relatable to mention here that in the case of Faysal Bank Limited v. Haris Steel Industry (Pvt.) Limited (2023 CLD 44), this Court has already discussed in detail the entire procedure about speedy and effective auction of a property and its subsequent effects on auction purchaser. In this regard, relevant paragraph-40 of said decision is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

"40. The vested/third party rights accrue in favour of a bidder when the auction-sale becomes complete, i.e. when the Court confirms the auction sale. However, such vested rights again are defeatable and would not take away the right of the mortgagor/judgment debtor to redeem his property if he brings his case within the parameters of Order XXI Rule 89, Rule 90, or Rule 91 of the "C.P.C.". However, position of the auction purchaser is different when the court confirms the auction sale in favour of the auction purchaser. Reliance is placed on Hudaybia Textile Mills Ltd. v. Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. (PLD 1987 SC 512) wherein the court had accepted the bid and the sale had been completed, giving rise to vested rights in the auctioned property. It has also been held that once a sale has been affected, a third party interest intervenes which cannot be disregarded."

From the afore-quoted paragraph, it can be safely concluded that once a sale has been confirmed in favour of successful bidder and subsequently sale certificate has also been issued in his/her favour then at a belated stage, the auction purchaser cannot be deprived of the said property because he/she gains valuable rights upon confirmation of the sale, including the right to possess the property, transfer of ownership, and protection against subsequent claims that are not based on fraud or irregularity. These rights are generally protected by law, including the C.P.C., and are subject to the terms and conditions of the auction.

7. In view of the above discussion, I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. This writ petition fails and is dismissed.

UN/M-85/L Petition dismissed.