I.   Background

1.   This refers to the Important QCs in trail, blue, italic and after double line (a) TLQC2662 of 7.3.24 about SOP for Time limit Condonation - FST S. 74 (b) CDQC256 of 20.4.24 about Get Condonation of Import / Export Prohibitions, etc and KCR

2.   We also refer to several Other TLQC including (a) TLQC1231 of 12.11.20 about FBR letter re Condonation for TY 2014 may be ultra vires - LHC Interim relief (b) TLQC1215 of 31.10.20 about Condonation Cases Quick Disposal u/s 74 SOP - FST Cir  --

II.   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The petitioner challenged at --HC to an auction of property conducted on 2.12.24 for satisfaction of a decree passed under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The Petitioner argued that the Banking Court ignored procedural requirements under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC and should not have required a 50% deposit or security.

Conversely, the respondents maintained that the orders complied with law and that the petitioner repeatedly shifted his stance, failed to deposit the required amounts under Rule 89 or Rule 90 CPC within the statutory timeframe, and acted in bad faith to delay execution.

• No objections were raised by the petitioner during the auction proceedings until after the sale.
• Applications under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC require deposit of the decretal amount plus 5% of the purchase money within the prescribed period — a mandatory condition that cannot be extended.
• The petitioner’s applications were belated and not accompanied by the required deposit; mere re-labeling of applications did not meet legal requirements.
• Section 19(7) of the Ordinance complements, rather than conflicts with, Order XXI Rule 90 CPC; both must be followed.
• The petitioner’s inconsistent positions violated the principle of approbate and reprobate.
• The petition was filed beyond the limitation period for appeal, and no request to condone delay was made.

LHC upheld the Banking Court’s orders and dismissed the petition, finding no illegality or procedural defect. No costs were awarded.

III.   DETAILS

A.   Reference  

Further to KQU 3473 of ---------, being an important matter, we would inform you about -------------------------------(Attachment 318 .1) in the ensuing paragraph, with emphasis in bold & Underline for quick reading 

B.   Learned Petitioner Counsel Submissions

1.   The petitioner has sought to set-aside auction conducted on ------------ by the learned Banking Court- ------------- (the ‘Banking Court’) for satisfaction of the judgment and decree dated 4.3.22 passed under section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (the ‘Ordinance’).

2.    ---------------, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the pre-requisites of Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure-1908 (CPC) have been ignored by the learned Banking Court; that no mala fide on the part of the petitioner is involved so that they could have been directed by the learned Banking Court to deposit 50% of the sale amount or to furnish security.

C.   Learned Respondent Legal Submissions

1.   Conversely, ----------------, learned Advocate for respondent No. 2 / auction purchaser has vehemently opposed this petition. --- has contended that the orders passed by the learned Banking Court are in accordance with law; that the petitioner himself resiled from his stance regarding the alleged infirmities in the auction and made a request to the learned Banking Court through an application dated 12.2.25, whereby, he requested to consider the earlier application under Order XXI rule 89 of CPC but then he failed to deposit the sale proceed along with 5% of the purchase money. In course of arguments, she has relied upon various judgments including cases titled ---------------------.

2.  ------------, learned counsel for the decree-holder / respondent No. 1 has stated that this petition and the applications before the learned Banking Court have been filed in utter bad faith to deprive the decree-holder from the benefits of the decree which was passed more than two years ago.

D.   --HC Deliberation

1 to 15

E.   --HC Conclusion & Decision

As already observed above, the petitioner has not made any request during arguments or prayer in the petition for permission to deposit any amount under Order XXI rule 89 of CPC and even otherwise the time period provided by law has elapsed. In substance the petitioner kept on maintaining that this Court should intervene in order dated 15.1.25. The present petition was filed on 6.3.25, much after the period for filing an appeal under section 22 of the Ordinance. Limitation period has been prescribed by the Ordinance which is a special law to which the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act-1908 are not applicable. Needless to say that no request or application to condone the delay is made, either. No question arises to convert the petition into appeal.

15. In view of the foregoing, --HC is of the considered view that the orders delivered by the learned Banking Court are in consonance with law, hence, the same are hereby maintained and upheld. The present petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

IV.   FURTHER DETAILS & SERVICES

Should you require any clarification or explanations in respect of the above or otherwise, please feel free to email Mr Amsal at amsal@kasbati.co with CC to info.kasbati@professional-excellence.com.

Best regards for Here & Hereafter
Asif S Kasbati (FCA, FCMA & LLB)

Managing Partner 

Kasbati & Co (1400+ Tax, Levies, Companies, Economy, Inflation, HR, Banking, Finance, etc

Quick Commentary Service Provider and High Level 440+ Tax & Levies Laws Consultants) 

Head of Tax & Professional Excellence Services (Symbols of High Quality Practical Tax, Levies & Corporate Training for Beginners to High Levels' Professionals) 

PTCL: 92-21-34329108 Mobile: 0334 322 3161 Website: kasbati.co Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/taxexcellence/ 

Google Map link: Tax Excellence  YouTube Channel Tax Excellence