Pakistan Supreme Court: A Full Bench of Gulzar Ahmed, Faisal Arab, Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ., dismissed the petition filed under Order 21 Rule 90 of Code of Civil Procedure on 08-09-2014 seeking to set aside the auction mainly on the grounds of want of notice of the execution proceedings and incorrect appraisal of the mortgaged property.
Fibercare Specialties, a proprietorship concern of the petitioner’s husband, had availed financial facilities from the respondent 1 bank between the years 2007 and 2010. This business was being run on property situated in Shah Baig Gabool Goth, F.B. Industrial Area, Karachi, owned by the petitioner. To secure the finance availed by the petitioner’s husband, this property was mortgaged with the respondent 1 bank. The last date to retire the debt availed by the petitioner’s husband had expired on 30-04-2010 on which date a sum of Rs 3,972,399.47 was due towards the principal amount excluding markup. As the business failed to discharge its financial obligation within the stipulated time, even after a lapse of about ten months of the debt becoming due, the respondent 1 had filed a suit in the banking court on 11-02-2011 for recovery of the principal amount along with markup and cost of funds.
The Banking Court had dismissed her application against which the petitioner had preferred an appeal in the High Court which too was dismissed, hence the instant appeal.
The counsels for the petitioner Mr Muhammad Haseeb Jamali and Mr Ghulam Rasool Mangi contended that the petitioner being a permanent resident of USA ought to have been served at her USA address but neither any notice of the execution proceedings was served upon her nor the value of the mortgaged property was properly ascertained nor all the legal requirements necessary for the auction were fulfilled.
The Court while dismissing the petition held that the petitioner had notice of the proceedings and inadequacy in the valuation of the forced sale value of the mortgaged property, if any, was not a valid ground to set-aside a court sale. [Nazli Hilal Rizvi v. Bank-Al-Falah Ltd., Civil Petition No. 381-K of 2019, decided on 07-08-2019]