AFZAL MAQSOOD BUTT versus BANKING COURT NO.2, LAHORE
Section 18 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), A XXI, Rr 84 and 85 Sale Price, Non-Depositing of Conditioning Defaults Deposited in Sale Price Holding Appellant Suit Property Successful Bidder But Selling Was not approved, therefore, he did not deposit the money in terms of O XXI, R 84, after the CPC the appellant was directed to deposit the entire amount by a fixed date. The appellant issued a check that was dishonored and the auction's fresh schedule was published and the auction took place, meanwhile, with the permission of the banking court, the appellant deposited the dishonest check in cash. Confirmed the auction in favor of the auction and subsequently the highest bidder of the auction also confirmed the sale in favor of the appellant and the High Court, justifying the sale according to the constitutional jurisdiction, for example illegal and banking. The court was responsible for reselling the property, as well as the appellant's ability to collect the sale price. In the event of a failure, the right to purchase was lost in such circumstances the Banking Court could justify allowing the default sponsor and the appellant to submit the sale. Price O XXI, R 85, CPC was required to pay the sale price and under normal circumstances the sale of the sale price to the banking court should not be bound by the failure of the auction buyer provided under the law. The full value of the sale within a period of time or within the time set by the Banking Court, the sale will be declared invalid, except in the case of the Banking Court reselling the property.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
