Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ---- Arts. 4, 9 & 10A ---- Right to fair and timely trial ---- Delay in adjudication as constitutional infraction ---- Access to justice undermined by systemic delay Fourteen years elapsed between the original auction of immovable property and the final hearing before the Supreme Court, during which the petitioner’s appeal remained pending for over a decade before the High Court. The Court held that such delay, though administrative on the surface, constitutes a constitutional violation of Articles 4, 9, and 10A, which guarantee the right to due process and meaningful access to justice. Held, justice delayed for such an extraordinary duration is justice effectively denied; prolonged pendency rendered the petitioner’s claim moot, fragile, and extinguished by time. Remedy without timeliness is not a remedy in law. Cited Cases: • Baz Muhammad Kakar v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2012 SC 923 • Khan Asfandyar Wali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2001 SC 607 • Liaqat Hussain v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1999 SC 504 • Mehram Ali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1998 SC 1445 • Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1996 SC 324 • Government of Balochistan v. Azizullah Memon PLD 1993 SC 341 • Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1988 SC 416 (b) Civil Procedure --- Execution proceedings --- Challenge to auction of immovable property --- Concurrent findings by courts below --- No interference by Supreme Court Petitioner challenged the 2011 auction of immovable property conducted in execution of a 2010 money decree. His objections were dismissed at trial, and the appellate challenge before the High Court remained pending for over ten years. The Supreme Court, after independent examination of the record, upheld the concurrent findings of the courts below and found no merit in the objections to the auction proceedings. Petition was also dismissed for non-prosecution as no representative appeared to argue the case, despite notice. (c) Judicial governance --- Systemic delay --- Structural reforms required --- Judicial credibility dependent on timely adjudication The Court observed that over 2.2 million cases were pending nationwide, including nearly 56,000 before the Supreme Court itself. Such delays erode public trust, discourage economic investment, distort contractual enforcement, and disproportionately burden the vulnerable. Held, delay is not merely a docket management issue but a challenge to constitutional governance and the legitimacy of the justice system. It calls for intelligent case management, elimination of queue-jumping, prioritization of constitutional and high-impact matters, and technology-assisted scheduling using artificial intelligence tools without compromising judicial discretion. (d) Comparative constitutional law --- Judicial efficiency --- International models of reform cited --- Technology and procedural restructuring as imperatives The Court referenced judicial innovations in Singapore, UK, Brazil, Estonia, Canada, China, Denmark, and Australia, where digital dashboards, automated scheduling, and e-filing systems have transformed judicial delivery from passive docket handling to active justice management. Held, Pakistani courts must draw inspiration from such global experiences and adopt institutional reform through administrative discipline, structural redesign, and technological modernization to combat the endemic delay and deliver timely, citizen-centric justice. Disposition: Petition dismissed both on merits and for non-prosecution. Supreme Court calls for urgent judicial reform to ensure timely access to justice.

Summary: '' Section 5-7 of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993 and policy decision---The Chairman, PCBL is not vested with any exclusive power to alienate the properties, assets of the Board through any private treaty or understanding and any alienation of the property/ asserts of the Board by the Chairman in contravention of the above law as well as the policy decision, that has no binding force and same does not create any right enforceable through constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Writ Petition dismissed with heavy cost.'' ------ (a) Constitutional Law – Writ Jurisdiction – Private Treaty for Public Property---Writ petition—Maintainability—Petitioners challenged the dismissal of their claim to purchase shops through private treaty from Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation (PCBL)—Held, PCBL properties are public assets and must be alienated in accordance with the prescribed legal framework—Chairman PCBL had no unilateral authority to sell properties through private negotiations—No provision in the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993, authorizes such transactions—Private agreements without public auction are susceptible to fraud, favoritism, and corruption—Reliance placed on Capital Development Authority v. Ahmed Murtaza (2023 SCMR 61).(b) Public Property – Sale Through Auction – Legal Procedure Mandatory---Public property—Legal framework for disposal—PCBL advertised an auction for shops but failed to receive bids—Petitioners did not participate in auction and instead sought to purchase via private negotiation—Held, sale of public property must follow due process, ensuring transparency and equal opportunity—No legal right accrues to petitioners merely on the basis of negotiations or partial payments—Attempted acquisition through under-the-table settlement is illegal and void.(c) Fraudulent and Collusive Transactions – Effect on Contractual Rights---Fraudulent and collusive agreements—Petitioners deposited a nominal amount claiming right to purchase—No documentary evidence or board approval for sale—Held, fraud vitiates all transactions—An agreement against public policy is void and unenforceable—Even if a Chairman unlawfully makes an offer, the act remains illegal—A fraudulent foundation of ownership claim automatically collapses—Reliance placed on Province of Punjab v. Zulfiqar Ali (2024 SCMR 22).(d) Contract Law – Absence of a Legally Binding Agreement---Absence of contract—No evidence of acceptance by PCBL or board approval—Petitioners' claim based on an alleged offer from the Chairman—Held, a unilateral deposit of funds does not create enforceable contractual rights—No agreement meeting legal formalities was concluded—Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to enforce an illegal or non-existent contract.(e) Cost for Frivolous Litigation Against Public Institution---Frivolous litigation—Petitioners engaged in protracted litigation since 2002 without legal entitlement—Held, misuse of judicial process warrants imposition of costs—Petitioners burdened with PKR 1,000,000 as special costs, recoverable as arrears of land revenue—Reliance placed on Javed Hameed v. Aman Ullah (2024 SCMR 89).---- Disposition:W.P. No. 14800/2010 & W.P. No. 14799/2010 dismissed – No legal right accrued to petitioners.Special costs of PKR 1,000,000 imposed for frivolous litigation.Observations are limited to this petition and shall not affect future proceedings.

Summary: (a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001----S. 15---Auction of mortgaged property by financial institution---Effect of Supreme Court ruling declaring S. 15 ultra vires---Scope---Auction of mortgaged property was conducted under the originally framed S. 15 of the Ordinance before its re-enactment pursuant to National Bank of Pakistan v. SAF Textile Mills Ltd. PLD 2014 SC 283, wherein the Supreme Court declared the provision unconstitutional---Held, that since the Apex Court did not invoke the doctrine of prospective overruling, past transactions were not automatically protected---Further held, that the auction sale under reference could not be treated as a past and closed transaction due to the pendency of the present appeal challenging the auction proceedings---Auction confirmed under an unconstitutional legal provision was void ab initio.Cited Cases:• National Bank of Pakistan v. SAF Textile Mills Ltd. PLD 2014 SC 283(b) Banking Law---Public Auction Principles----Validity of auction conducted with a single bid---Lack of competitive bidding---Effect---Respondent bank conducted auction proceedings and accepted a single bid, subsequently confirming the sale without ensuring competitive bidding---Held, that acceptance of a single bid without competition contradicts the concept of a public auction and fails to achieve the best possible price---Reliance placed on Al-Hadi Rice Mills (Pvt) Ltd. v. MCB Bank Ltd. 2023 CLD 85, wherein the Supreme Court declared that public auctions must involve competitive bidding to be legally valid.Cited Cases:• Al-Hadi Rice Mills (Pvt) Ltd. v. MCB Bank Ltd. 2023 CLD 85(c) Constitutional Law---Judicial Review of Auction Rules----Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Amendment Act 2016---Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Rules 2018---Validity of single-bid acceptance under Rule 3(c)(iv)---Held, that amended S. 15 of the Ordinance and subsequent Rules introduced conditions permitting single-bid acceptance under certain circumstances---However, in Muhammad Shoaib Arshad v. Federation of Pakistan 2020 CLD 638, a larger bench declared Rule 3(c)(iv) unconstitutional---Thus, the auction sale in the instant case could not derive legitimacy from the amended law.Cited Cases:• Muhammad Shoaib Arshad v. Federation of Pakistan 2020 CLD 638(d) Civil Procedure---Restitution of Property After Invalid Auction----Effect of setting aside auction confirmation---Appellant’s right to seek restitution---Scope---Held, that the confirmation of auction sale was illegal and set aside---Appellant was granted liberty to initiate proceedings for restitution and reversal of actions taken pursuant to the confirmation order---Auction purchaser acquired no valid title under the annulled proceedings.Disposition: Appeal allowed; auction confirmation declared void; appellant permitted to seek restitution.

Summary: (a) Contract Law – Auction of Evacuee Trust Property – No Vested Right Without Approval — Terms of auction – Clauses 4 and 8 – Right to match the highest bid – Cancellation of auction – Effect – Appellants participated in an auction conducted by the Evacuee Trust Property Board (ETPB) for land measuring 49 kanals and 11 marlas, where they exercised their right to match the highest bid of Rs.79,000/- per kanal – However, under clause 4 of the auction terms, the approval of the competent authority was necessary for the bid to be finalized – Clause 8 vested the ETPB with the right to cancel the auction without assigning any reason – Chairman, ETPB, canceled the auction before approving the appellants’ matched bid and ordered re-auction – Held, a bid at an auction, even if the highest, does not create any vested right in favor of the bidder unless confirmed by the competent authority – The appellants’ option to match the highest bid merely placed them in the position of the highest bidder, and without confirmation, they had no claim of ownership over the suit land – Courts cannot re-write auction terms, and in the absence of approval, no legal right accrues in favor of the appellants. Cited Cases: Javed Iqbal Abbasi & Company v. Province of Punjab (1996 SCMR 1433) – Principles of natural justice not violated where a re-auction is ordered. Captain-PQ Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. A.W. Brothers (2004 SCMR 1956) – Mere participation in an auction, even as the highest bidder, does not create a legal right. Afzal Maqsood Butt v. Banking Court No.2, Lahore (PLD 2005 SC 470) – An auction bid is only an offer; without confirmation, no rights in the property are vested.

Summary: -----Quote: Order XXI Rule 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("the CPC")? Scope -- Were the Auctioneers justified, in terms of Rule 84 of Order XXI of the CPC, to offer option to purchase the property to second highest bidder, and upon his failure to extend option to purchase to the third highest bidder [decree holder bank] ? the only bidder standing. Learned counsel for the decree-holder bank submitted that where successful bidder is the decree holder bank requirements under Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 84 of Order XXI of the CPC can be dispensed with and there was no need for re-sale. Held: The argument is flawed inasmuch as concession available under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 84 of Order XXI of the CPC is confined to the extent of requirement of deposit of 20% of the purchase money and does not spill to statutory direction regarding forthwith re-sale if payment of purchase money was not deposited by the successful bidder. Expression of re-sale of the property has to be examined in the context of Rule 84 ibid, which does not imply sale of property to the next bidder. In the present case, offering of option to the second highest bidder and then to the third highest bidder (decree holder bank) was contrary to Rule 84 of Order XXI of the CPC. -----Background: The appellants challenged the confirmation of an auction sale conducted by a decree-holder bank, following a default in loan repayment. The auction was conducted multiple times, and ultimately, the decree-holder bank (respondent) was confirmed as the successful bidder. The appellants contended that the auction process violated the statutory mandates under Rule (84) of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as the property was not re-sold immediately after the default by the highest bidder to deposit 25% of the purchase money. -----Issues: 1- Compliance with Rule (84), Order XXI, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Whether the auctioneer violated the requirement to immediately re-sell the property upon the highest bidder’s failure to deposit 25% of the purchase money. -----2- Validity of Sale Without Re-Sale: Whether the auction sale could be confirmed without re-selling to new bidders after the default. -----3- Effect of Non-Compliance with Rule (90) Order XXI: Whether the failure of appellants to deposit 20% of the auction proceeds affected their right to contest the sale’s validity. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the auction sale was invalid, null, and void due to substantial procedural violations. The court's reasoning included: --Violation of Rule (84) of Order XXI: When the highest bidder failed to deposit 25%, the auctioneer should have re-sold the property instead of offering it to the subsequent bidders. Continuing with the aborted sale contravened the mandate of Rule (84), which requires an immediate re-sale in such cases. Single-Bidder Concern: The auction ultimately had only one valid participant, the decree-holder bank, which failed to meet the requirements of a competitive public auction, thus undermining the transparency and fairness essential to public auctions. --Non-Applicability of Rule (90): The court determined that the requirement for the appellants to deposit 20% under Rule (90) was not applicable because the auction sale was legally invalid due to the significant statutory violations. The court allowed the appeal, declaring the auction sale void and setting aside the confirmation order of 13.10.2022. -----Citations/Precedents: Rule (84) & Rule (90) of Order XXI, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Pertinent legal guidelines for deposit and re-sale requirements. Mst. Nadia Malik v. Messrs Makki Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2011 SCMR 1675) Afzal Maqsood Butt v. Banking Court No.2, Lahore (PLD 2005 Supreme Court 470) Muhammad Ashraf v. U.B.L (2019 SCMR 1004) Al-Hadi Rice Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. MCB Bank Limited (2023 CLD 85) Summit Bank Limited v. Messrs M. M. Brothers (2023 CLD 297) - Highlighted the requirement for competitive bidding in auctions.

Summary: Issues:Whether the compensation and plot allotment commitments made by the Government of Sindh to the affectees of Gujjar, Orangi, and Mehmoodabad Nallahs were adequate and appropriately administered.Whether the orders regarding refunds for the purchasers of units in the demolished Nasla Tower have been complied with, and the proper handling of the deceased owner?s estate.The legality of public encroachments by government entities and the appropriate measures for removal.The responsibility of local governments towards environmental management, specifically regarding the maintenance and planting of trees on public pavements.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Gujjar, Orangi, and Mehmoodabad Nallahs: The court affirmed the commitment by the Government of Sindh to allot 80 square yard plots to the identified affectees and ordered prompt compensation as per previous stipulations. A directive was issued to finalize all claims within a specified timeframe.Nasla Tower: The court ordered that the land on which Nasla Tower stood should be auctioned, with proceeds going to the affectees, due to non-compliance with the refund orders by the deceased owner. The court also issued directives for handling the amenity plot according to the law.Public Encroachments: The court condemned the encroachment of public spaces by governmental entities, ordering the immediate clearance of such encroachments and recovery of costs from responsible parties.Environmental Concerns: The court directed local governments to conduct surveys and undertake the planting and maintenance of trees on public pavements to combat environmental degradation and enhance public welfare.----Citations/Precedents:Order dated 8 April 2024 for compliance on compensation to Gujjar, Orangi, and Mehmoodabad Nallahs affectees.Order dated 16 June 2021 regarding the refund responsibilities of the Nasla Tower owner.Order dated 22 September 2021 concerning the use of the amenity plot adjacent to Nasla Tower.Order dated 29 October 2021 addressing the failure to compensate purchasers in the Tejori Heights project.

Summary: Background:Civil Petition No. 4194 of 2023 was filed by Tariq Zubair Khan against Mst. Tabassum Khan and others in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The petition challenged the order dated 27.09.2023 by the Islamabad High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an order concerning the auction of property inherited from their deceased parents. The property in question is House No.582, Street No.13, Sector G-10/1, Islamabad. A preliminary decree for partition was issued, followed by an auction conducted by a Court Auctioneer.---Issues:The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Islamabad High Court erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal regarding his objections to the auction process. Specifically, the petition addressed whether the objections were correctly handled under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), particularly focusing on the application of Order XXI, Rules 84 and 90.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's ruling. The Court found that the petitioner had not properly challenged the auction under the relevant rules of the CPC intended for such objections (Order XXI, Rule 89 or 90). Instead, he filed under Rule 84, which pertains to the immediate payment obligations of a purchaser, not to the auction's procedural challenges.The Court noted that objections to the auction process on grounds of material irregularity or fraud should have been made under Rule 90, which also requires depositing 20% of the auction proceeds as a condition to entertain such objections. The petitioner failed to meet these procedural requirements, leading to the dismissal of his objections and subsequent appeals.---Citations/Precedents:Muhammad Attique vs Jami Limited and others (PLD 2010 SC 993): Discussed the procedural requirements and the effects of auction sales under CPC, highlighting that title transfer is contingent upon the confirmation of the auction sale and compliance with Rules 89, 90, and 91 of Order XXI.Mst. Samrana Nawaz and others vs MCB Bank Ltd and others (PLD 2021 SC 581): Addressed the requirements under the second proviso to Order XXI, Rule 90, clarifying the timing and amount of the deposit required to challenge an auction sale.

Summary: The petitioner challenged the appellate court's decision which set aside the trial court's order confirming an auction sale in his favor and issuing a sale certificate.----Issues:Whether the appellate court erred in setting aside the auction sale confirmed by the trial court.Whether the petitioner complied with the statutory requirements for completing the auction purchase under the relevant legal provisions.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The High Court upheld the appellate court's decision to set aside the auction sale. It was found that the petitioner failed to deposit the remaining 80% of the auction price within the seven-day period mandated by law, a requirement deemed mandatory and critical for the validity of the auction sale. The court emphasized that non-compliance with this mandatory provision leads to the automatic cancellation of the sale and the forfeiture of the amount already deposited. Thus, the appellate court's ruling was determined to be correct, and the petitioner's revision was dismissed for lacking merit.----Citations/Precedents:Mst. Nadia Malik vs. Messrs Makki Chemical Industries Pvt Limited [2011 SCMR 1675]Messrs Maqi Chemicals Industries (Pvt.) Limited vs. Habib Bank Limited [2003 CLD 571]

Summary: Background:Muhammad Adil and other petitioners contested the auction process of certain properties following a suit for possession through partition initiated by the predecessor in interest of respondents No.1 to 3. The trial court's decisions to appoint a local commission and later a court auctioneer to handle the sale of properties were disputed by the petitioners, leading to objections against the auction proceedings and the eventual sale of a property to plaintiff No.3. Both the objection petitions and subsequent appeal by the petitioners were dismissed, prompting the filing of a civil revision petition.-----Issues:The validity of the petitioners' objection petition based on the non-deposition of 50% of the successful bid amount as required under Rule 90, Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.The legal standing of plaintiff No.3 (a decree-holder) to participate in the auction under the amended Rule 72 of Order XXI, Code of Civil Procedure, as per Lahore High Court Amendment Notification No.237/Legis/XI-Y-26 dated 22.08.2018.The procedural regularity of the auction proceedings conducted by the court auctioneer.-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court dismissed the civil revision petition. The Court found that the petitioners failed to deposit 50% of the successful bid amount with their objection petition, rendering it not entertainable. Additionally, the amended Rule 72 of Order XXI, Code of Civil Procedure, explicitly allows decree-holders to participate in auction proceedings, validating plaintiff No.3's bid. The Court also noted that the auction process followed legal procedures, including proper publication and notice service, with no procedural irregularities or illegalities identified in the auctioneer's report or the petitioners' objections. Thus, the Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the revision petition for lack of substance.----Citations/Precedents:Rule 90, Order XXI, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Governs the application to set aside a sale on the grounds of irregularity or fraud, requiring the depositor to deposit a significant portion of the sale sum or furnish security.Rule 72, Order XXI, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended by Lahore High Court Amendment Notification No.237/Legis/XI-Y-26 dated 22.08.2018): Allows decree-holders to participate in the auction of properties involved in their decree executions, with provisions for the set-off of purchase money against the decree amount.

Summary: Punjab Local Government Ordinance (XIII of 2001) [Since repealed]--- ----S. 142---Punjab Local Government (Auctioning of Collection Rights) Rules, R. 13(3)---Rule 13(3) of Punjab Local Government (Auctioning of Collection Rights) Rules, 2003, vires of---Offer of contract, cancellation of---Required amount, non-depositing of---Terms of auction / contract---Applicability---Petitioners were aggrieved of cancellation of their contracts by authorities for non-depositing of required amount---Validity---Earnest / security money under Punjab Local Government (Auctioning of Collection Rights) Rules, 2003 is received as measure to ensure that serious contenders participate in auction and if successful bidder fails to enter into a contract and does not deposit balance amount in accordance with terms and conditions, the earnest / security money stands forfeited---Earnest / security amount deposited prior to holding of auction was justifiable in terms of R. 13(3) of Punjab Local Government (Auctioning of Collection Rights) Rules, 2003---Any contractual violation subsequent to execution of contract was to be resolved as per mechanism provided under the contract (including arbitration clause) and not by terms of auction---High Court declared that provision of R. 13(3) of Punjab Local Government (Auctioning of Collection Rights) Rules, 2003, was not ultra vires to the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Province of Sindh v. Public at Large PLD 1988 SC 138; Meenakshinada Deikshtar v. Murugesa Nadar and another AIR 1970 Madras 391 (V 57C 116) and Space Telecom (Private) Limited, Lahore v. Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, Islamabad through Chairman 2019 SCMR 101 ref. Abdul Rasheed Sheikh for Petitioner. Imran Khan, Assistant Advocate General , Sahibzada Muhammad Saleem, Assistant Advocate General, Haji Muhammad Aslam Malik, Advocate/Legal Advisor, M.C., Dera Ghazi Khan and Muhammad Asif Malik for Respondents. Riaz Ahmad, SLO, Local Government South Punjab, Bahawalpur and Muhammad Falak Sher, Senior Clerk, M.C. Dera Ghazi Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 27th February, 2024.