Javed Iqbal and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ CAPTAIN-PQ CHEMICAL

JAVED IQBAL, J.--- The main grievance of the petitioner as canvassed at bar by Mr. Anwar Mansoor Khan, learned ASC on behalf of petitioner is that a bid was floated pursuant to an advertisement published in leading newspapers for the property with the description as "Property B", which was subsequently consolidated with the property described as "Property A" without notice to the petitioner and auctioned in favour of respondents in the tune of Rs,36 crore. It is the case of petitioner thatsince advertisement was made for two different properties hence their consolidated auction could not have been made that too without notice which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice.

2. Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, learned ASC, entered appearance on behalf- of respondent No,1 and strenuously controverted the arguments as adduced by Mr. Anwar Mansoor Khan, learned ASC for the petitioner, with the submission that opportunity was given to petitioner to purchase both the properties who declined. The learned ASC on behalf of respondent No,1 has supported the judgment impugned for the reasons enumerated therein and further pointed out that no illegality whatsoever has been committed by the learned High Court and judgment impugned being well- reasoned does not warrant interference.

3. We have examined the entire record and also perused the judgment impugned. We may mention here at the outset that mere floating of the bid in respect of the fact whether it is the highest or the lowest, does not create a legal right in favour of the bidder, hence the question of its infringement does not arise. The petitioner has just floated a bid on the basis whereof no bar could be imposed on the official assignee or the Court to evolve a methodology to fetch more price to satisfy the decree subject to fairness and transparency. There is no cavil with the proposition that auction proceedings should be transparent and every possible effort be made to fetch the maxim price closer to market value. The prime object of inviting tender is to provide equal opportunity to all the prospective bidders which was never frustrated by accepting the highest bid. It is worth mentioning here at this juncture that the offer was also given to the petitioner by the Court concerned to purchase the property in question by giving a matching offer, which was not responded. The learned ASC on behalf of petitioner was asked pointedly as to whether he was prepared to purchase the properties "A" and "B" in equivalent amount paid by the respondents but the offer was not accepted for the reason that it was beyond their financial competency. The petitioner was only interested to purchase the property and shown his inclination to do so but the bifurcation of property "B" from "A" would cause serious prejudice against the respondents by whom an amount of Rs,36 crore was paid and would have also detrimental effect on the interest of judgment-debtor and the question of satisfaction of decree would have not arisen. It cannot be done at this stage merely for the reason that a bid was floated by the petitioner. As mentioned hereinabove by floating of bid no legal right whatsoever accrued in favour of petitioner. The Court in such-like eventualities is required to safeguard preliminarily the interest of judgment-debtor and further to see that auction proceedings have been conducted in a fair and transparent manner and no bar whatsoever has been imposed on the Court if some beneficialdevices evolved to get maximum price and to achieve the said purpose. The Court may make any amendment, deletion, insertion or change in the advertisement qua auction. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in case titled Asma Zafarul Hassan v. United Bank 1981 SCM R 108 wherein it was held as follows while discussing identical proposition: -- "(11) The learned counsel vehemently urged that the property could not be sold otherwise than by auction. For this proposition, he placed reliance on rule 65, Order XXI, C.P.C. And rule 351 of the Chief Court Rules (Original Side). These provisions do prescribe the mode of disposal by public auction but neither of them expressly or by necessary implication prohibit any other mode of disposal.

Therefore, if the Court had deviated from this mode of disposal to serve the ends of justice, no exception can be taken to it. In Narsing Das v. Mangal Dobey (1883) 5 All, 163 Mahmood, J.

Observed:- `Courts are not to act upon the principle that every procedure is to be taken as prohibited unless it is expressly provided for by the Code but on the converse principle that every procedure is to be understood as permissible till it is shown to be prohibited by the law. As a matter of general principle prohibition cannot be presumed'.

(12) This principle. Is now well-accepted and as the prime object of the procedural law is to advance the cause of justice, the Court can, under its inherent power, adopt a different mode in the absence of any prohibition to that effect. This contention is also without substance."

A mention has been made by the learned ASC regarding the provisions as contained in Order XXI, rule 90, C.P.C. Which in fact was never invoked in a proper manner and hence it would be too late to discuss the import and significance of the provisions as contained in Order 21, rule 90, C.P.C. We have not observed any mala fide, arbitrary exercise of discretionary power, lack of transparency, discrimination, favouritism, nepotism or unfairness. The judgment impugned being well-based does not warrant interference. The petition being meritless is dismissed and leave refused. . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.