An auction in execution proceedings refers to the sale of the judgement debtor’s property to satisfy a court judgment. Completion of due requirements, successful bidding and purchase of property results in creating certain rights of auction purchaser in execution proceedings. These rights base on the principle that a bona fide buyer at such sale, conducted under a court order, should be protected. Once the sale is confirmed, the purchaser gains a legal title to the property, which is generally free from previous encumbrances or claims against the judgment debtor. This ensures the integrity and finality of court-supervised sales, encouraging fair bidding and participation.
Sanctity of rights of auction purchaser in Judicial sale:
Rights of Auction Purchaser are secured as much as it can be by the courts. The reason behind this protection is the settled view of court about judicial sales that sanctity of judicial sale is not only to be maintained but full effect to judicial sale also need to be given for restoring the confidence of people who wish to purchase properties in court sale.
United Bank Limited V Hyderabad electronic industries Ltd 2017 CLD 1340
Creation of vested rights of auction purchaser:
The bid in auctions is only an offer, and without confirmation of sale it does not create any right in the property in favour of highest bidder.
Afzal Maqsood Butt V Banking Court no.2 Lahore and 8 others PLD 2005 SC 470
Muhammad Jawed V First Women Bank Ltd 2020 SCMR 2134
The auctioneer serves as the agent of the seller, and a binding contract is formed the moment the bid is accepted, whether verbally or through customary methods such as the fall of the hammer at a public auction. However, if the auctioneer lacks the authority to accept the bid and this power resides with another authority (such as a court), the contract or sale is finalized when the bid is accepted by that authority.
On confirmation, the property deemed to have vested retrospectively from the date when the auction was held.
Muhammad Attique v. Jami Limited PLD 2010 SC 993
Faysal Bank Limited V Haris Steel Industry (Pvt.) Limited 2023 CLD 44
Court held that right and interest of buyer at court sale is established irrespective of the fact that order of confirmation of his sale passed or not. It cannot be taken away as sanctity is attached to the court sale.
Asif Munawar V Bank Islami Pakistan formerly Citi Bank 2024 CLD 126
Scope of Rights of Auction Purchaser:
Following are the various rights of auction purchaser that are protected by law:
1. Confirmation of sale is one of rights of auction purchaser:
In absence of any application under O.XXI, R. 89, 90, 91, or where any such application was made but disallowed, the Court is bound to make an order confirming the sale whereupon it was to become absolute. The execution petition or other applications at this stage cannot be dismissed due to non-prosecution.
Messrs Ali Abbas(Pvt) Ltd. v Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan 2007 CLD 712
Faysal Bank Limited V Sajjad Aslam 2022 CLD 123
2. Belated objections would not effect confirmed sale:
Court dismissed the appeal of Appellant who object that his proprietary right in the suit property being co-owner cannot be taken away by the buyer at sale who has a vested right in him by the Banking Court’s sale certificate.
Kauser Parveen and another V KASB Bank and others 2023 SCMR 890
No reason is mentioned by petitioner that why he initiated the proceedings belatedly, hence, cancellation of sale in execution seems to be a tactic to linger on the matter of recovery of dues
Mujahid Kareem V National Bank of Pakistan 2016 SCMR 66
After completion of sale, objections should not ordinarily be allowed except on very limited grounds like fraud etc. otherwise no auction sale can ever be completed.
Mumtaz Ud Din Feroze V Sheikh Iftikhar Adil PLD 2009 SC 207
Asma Zafarul Hassan V United Bank Limited 1981 SCMR 108
3. Position of rights of auction purchaser after setting aside decree:
Order XXI, Rule, 92 of the C.P.C., is designed to protect the interests of the third-party. Once a sale has been validly made and to ensure that a valid sale in execution is not made invalid to the prejudice of the auction purchaser because the decree was later reversed. Objection regarding reserve price could not be taken by the judgement debtor after the auction had taken place.
Messrs Habib and Company and others V Muslim Commercial Bank Limited and others PLD 2020 SC 227
Hudaybia Textile Mills v. Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. PLD 1987 SC 512
Habib and Company V Muslim Commercial Bank Limited 2019 SCMR 1453
When immovable property is sold in execution of a decree and the sale becomes absolute, the property is considered to have vested in the purchaser from the date of the sale, not from the date the sale became absolute. The sale of the property does not automatically wipe out even if the decree under which the sale was ordered is set aside, unless procedures under Order XXI, Rules 89 to 91 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) are followed. In this case, the sale was confirmed and a court certificate of sale was issued.
Hafiz Abdul Salam V Hassan Din 2020 YLR 2297
Zafar Ali V Muslim Commercial Bank Limited 2018 SCMR 987
4. Rights of auction purchaser to receive property free from encumbrance, charge or lien:
(a) General rule of “free from all encumbrances”:
Consistent view of the courts is that when the purchaser purchased the commodity then he expects that it shall be given to him without there being any liability attached.
When the offer was subject to it being free from encumbrance, the decree-holder cannot contend that the arrears should not be paid out of sale proceeds. So the decree holder shall be liable to clear all liabilities including electricity charges which are considered as encumbrance as per view taken in UBL V Messrs Akbar Cotton Mills Limited and another 1993 CLC 1560.
Messrs United Bank Limited V Messrs Nephew and Nephew Limited Co. 2004 MLD 319
(b) Un-notified charge, lien or encumbrance:
Encumbrance was not brought to the notice of auction purchaser or decree holder by proclamation or any other means. Appellant could not be made liable to pay charges/arrears out of the sale money specially when there is still huge amount outstanding against judgement debtor.
Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan V S.I.E 2006 CLD 1201
When mortgaged property is sold in execution, the buyer would acquire clean and unencumbered right and title to the property. Unless such charge, lien or encumbrance is notified in the sale proclamation as required under Rr.61 & 66 of 0.XXI, C.P.C. However, any such liability cannot be enforced against decree holder. Only judgement debtor is liable for that.
United Bank Limited V Messrs Al-Noor Enterprises 2006 CLC 822
However, government dues or taxes shall be liable to be paid. Where the municipal tax is due on property, it cannot be sold free from all encumbrance.
Tripura Modern Bank LTD V Khan Bahadur Khalil ur Rehman and others 1968 SCMR 259
(c) Priority of Mortgagee’s claim over utility bills:
In sale of property in execution, the bid was approved free from all encumbrance. Court held that utility charges cannot be paid as priority over the mortgage property. The mortgagee’s claim under O. XXXI, R. 13 C.P.C. would be satisfied at the first instance.
National Bank of Pakistan V Messrs Naya Dour Motors (Pvt.) Ltd 2010 CLC 654
Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan V Maida Limited 1994 SCMR 2248
(d) Property purchased on “As is where is” basis :
Basic rights of auction Purchaser of receiving the property free from all lien, charges and encumbrance would not be effected by the condition “as is where is” in the advertisement. The term “as is where is ” only referable to physical attributes of the property sold and did not relate to liabilities, dues and taxes.
Messrs Bismillah Textile Ltd V Habib Bank LTD and 55 others 2008 CLC 504
Mir Amjad Ali v. the Official Assignee, High Court of Sindh, Karachi and others 2001 CLC 671
The terms of the sale by public auction on “as is where is” basis would only reflect the condition and nature of the goods and not the rights, liabilities and encumbrances attached thereto.
Messrs S.S. Enterprises Karachi V Federation of Pakistan through Secretary 2002 SCMR 653
“As is” means that the current state, form and condition of the property whether good or bad being sold, with no warranty or assurance regarding its state or quality. Essentially, it means the buyer is purchasing the property with full awareness and acceptance of its current condition and attributes.
The phrase “where is” means that the property is to be examined, assessed, evaluated, and purchased at its current location. It also indicates the place where the transaction will be completed and where the buyer will take delivery of the property. A sale on an “as is, where is” basis requires the purchaser to rely on their own skill and ability to assess and evaluate the property’s status, nature, and quality.
Silk Bank Limited V Imperial Agro Chemical 2018 CLD 678
The phrase “as is where is” in the schedule of sale holds significant meaning in commercial activity. This phrase warns customers and buyers to be cautious, prudent, and aware that they are acting at their own risk when making an offer or entering into a transaction.
Messrs Julandar (Pvt.) Limited v. Official Assignee and 2 others 2003 CLD 1336
5. Rights of auction purchaser in purchasing previously mortgaged property:
No objection was raised by the prior mortgagee bank even after proclamation of sale. Therefore valuable rights of auction purchaser had been created, who had become bona fide owner for value. Sale in his favour could not be set aside.
However, intervener being prior mortgagee was entitled to receive the amount of sale consideration pursuant to such sale after deducting expenses incurred in the process of sale. Petitioner was directed to return the amount which it had received from the Official Assignee within specified period, to the intervener.
Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan V Muhammad Ayub stone crusher 2008 CLD 1286
The fact that the property was leased by the government for 30 years was not mentioned in advertisement. On this defective advertisement, buyer had participated in auction and deposited earnest money under a wrong impression. Buyer shall be considered as bona fide Purchaser. High Court directed Banking Court to refund earnest money deposited by him.
Ms Rahima Iqbal V Banking Court No. II 2008 CLD 338
However, there is exception to the above rule. In Shah Tareen Begum’s case, the sold house was mortgaged by a registered mortgage. Buyer did not file any application in writing before Sub-Registrar in order to find out as to whether house in question which she wanted to purchase was free from encumbrance or not. Buyer, in circumstance, could not claim to be bona fide purchaser of house in question.
Mst. Shah Tareen Begum V House Building Finance Corporation 2003 YLR 3090
6. Compromise after confirmation won’t effect rights of auction purchaser:
Buyer at court sale deposited the whole sale price in court. The sale of property becomes absolute on 19.06.2003 under O. XXI, R. 92 C.P.C. The letter of state bank dated 05.08.2003 about settling the dispute between petitioner and respondent was subsequent to sale. It could not effect confirmation of sale by the court.
Messrs Unicom Enterprises V Banking Court No.5 Citi Court Building, Karachi 2004 CLD 1452
Balquees Abbas V Haji Nazir Ahmad 2016 CLCN 142
7. Prohibition on restitution that infringes rights of auction purchaser:
The applicants sought the restitution of suit property that had been sold in execution of a decree, with possession already transferred to the auction purchaser. They argued that a compromise had been reached between the parties and that the pre-decree position should therefore be restored. However, the provisions of Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) did not apply because it could not be used for a decree being “varied” or “reversed” by a compromise, even if such a compromise was made before and recorded by an appellate court.
A decree being “varied” or “reversed” is an act of the court, whereas a compromise is an act of the parties. In this case, the decree was essentially the compromise agreement with the judge’s order added to it. The applicants were not seeking restitution but the enforcement of the compromise decree, which is a different matter entirely.
Although the application seemed to suggest that the applicants wanted the company’s property returned, their actual conduct indicated that they sought the enforcement of the compromise decree, which specified that the property was to be handed over to them. The principle of restitution did not apply to a compromise decree, as the restitution sought was not a return to the original status but the creation of a new situation. Therefore, the provision of Section 144, C.P.C., was not applicable.
Habib Bank Limited V National Bank Limited 2015 CLD 1351
8. Past and close transaction:
The plaintiff authority’s plots had already been auctioned, and the notification of de-acquisition was issued more than a year after the suit was filed. The plaintiff authority did not timely challenge the process under the Recovery of Tax Rules, 1980, initiated by the District Council for tax recovery. The proceedings were completed, and sale certificates were issued to the buyers before the suit was filed, making it a past and closed transaction.
Hazara Development Authority, Abbottabad/Mansehra Vs District Council, Abbottabad through administrator/TMO Abbottabad 2007 SCMR 1406
Muhammad Moizuddin V Mansoor Khalil 2017 CLD 1459 SC
Al-Samrez Enterprise V. Federation of Pakistan 1986 SCMR 1917,
Molasses Trading and Export (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 1993 SCMR 1905
Mehram Ali V. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1998 SC1445
Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam V. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2006 SC 602
Hussain Badshah v. Akhtar Zaman 2007 PLC (C.S.) 157
Mobashir Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2010 SC 265
Al- Tech Engineers and Manufacturers v. Federation of Pakistan 2017 SCMR 673
9. Preference of rights of auction purchaser over subsequent buyer:
Subsequent buyer intervened execution proceedings with the contention that he had purchased the property and the auction-purchasers are trying to dispossess him. High Court upheld the direction of banking court about handing over the possession to the auction-purchasers.
Ahmad Ali V Agricultural Development Bank now ZTB 2023 CLD 397
10. Rights of auction purchaser to get possession:
Court held that all questions relating to delivery of possession of properties to buyer at court sale shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution, and the satisfaction of decree. Court directed the Nazir to hand over the possession to him.
United Bank Limited V Hyderabad electronic industries LTD 2017 CLD 1340
Buyer at court sale may file application for delivery of possession.
Balquees Abbas V Haji Nazir Ahmad 2016 CLCN142
However, a statutory tenant who has a right to retain possession of that property cannot be ejected/dispossessed without due course of law.
Climax Printers through Proprietor and another V Habib Bank Limited 2008 MLD 1068
Anjum Rashid and others V Shehzad and others 2007 CLD 1210
Mrs. MUBARAK Shah V The Banking Court Judge No.III 2005 CLD 515
However tenant of property cannot seek cancellation of court sale.
Malik Muhammad Asad V Cotton Export Corporation 2011 CLC 503
11. Third party/stranger has no locus standing against auctioneer:
A stranger persons who has no rights/ interest in suit property has no locus standi to raise objections against auction-purchaser in execution.
Muhammad Maqsood V Touheed Sultan 2022 CLC 509
Ahmed Ali V Faysal Bank Limited 2015 CLD 498
12. Rights of auction purchaser won’t be effected by procedural incongruities:
Once a sale had been effected, third party interest intervenes and the same may not be whittled away by resort to procedural incongruities. Valuable rights of auction purchaser are created in property which could not be easily disturbed.
Sufi rice mills V National Bank of Pakistan 2019 CLD 395
13. Rights of auction purchaser to receive money on setting aside sale:
On setting aside of auction sale, court directed to return the money along with 20% amount on the sale price. Court also directed to appoint commission to assess the value of machinery installed by the buyer on property.
Rao Muhammad Sadaqat Ali V Rana Jamal Akbar Ice Factory Rajanour 2013 CLD 546
Habib Bank LTD. V Bashir Ahmad 2019 SCMR 362
14. Mistake of court would not effect:
Inadvertence, mistake, error or irregularity on the part of court could not take away rights of auction purchaser which accrued to him by depositing bid amount.
Mst. Noor Khatoon V Habib Bank LTD 2013 CLD 463
15. Unjustified grievance of low price won’t effect:
Judgement debtor raised objections of low auction price at a belated stage when the market value of property multiplied with the passage of time. Court held that such grievance of judgement debtor about low price is unjustified.
Messrs East Yarn Trading Company V United Bank Limited 2007 CLD 1555
Hudaybia Textile Mills LTD. V A.B.P.L. PLD 1987 SC 512
16. Proceeding after due date would not be set aside:
Property was auctioned not earlier to the date fixed by the court but two days later which did not adversely affect the proceedings. Court refused to set aside the same.
Messrs Masoom Industries V Habib Bank Limited 2005 SCMR 746
17. Filing of 12(2) won’t effect:
Execution proceedings already held. In these circumstances, executing court cannot go beyond the decree. Mere filing of application under sec.12(2) is no ground to set aside auction.
New Rahat Engineering works V National Bank of Pakistan 2003 CLD 57
18. Payment through cheque is not invalid:
The entire proceedings could not be halted solely because the initial payment was made by cheque. The record showed that the cheque was deposited with the auctioneer and presented before the Banking Judge, and it was duly honored with the funds being realized. Therefore, the judgment-debtor’s challenge on this ground was not sustainable under the circumstances.
Spinghar Textile Mills LTD V United Bank Limited 2011 CLD 1683
19. Want of beat of drum is no ground to set aside sale:
Without showing any substantial injury from the irregularity, mere non observing the method of publication by beat of drum is not sufficient to set aside auction sale.
Ghulam Abbas V Zohra Bibi And another PLD 1972 SC 337
20. Time extension is no ground for setting aside sale:
Sale was otherwise validly made in favour of the auction purchaser could not be set at naught merely for the reason that the Banking Court had fixed the period of one month and had extended it further to enable purchaser to deposit the balance amount which was beyond the period of 15 days as fixed by 0.XXI,R. 85.
Muhammad Ikhlaq Memon V Zakaria Ghani PLD 2005 SC 819
Determinants Influencing the Establishment of rights of Auction Purchaser:
1. Auction got set aside by legal heir of owner:
Application under S. 14(2) of the C.P.C. by one of the legal heirs of the deceased owner to set aside the decree, on the grounds that the plaintiffs (other legal heirs) had concealed the filing of the suit from him by not making him a party to it, and that he was prepared to pay 10% more than the auction price for the auctioned property. The Trial Court suspended the operation of the decree, directed the plaintiffs to amend the title of the suit to include the applicant’s name as a defendant, and ordered the Nazir to return the sale money to the buyer. Both of they were directed to give fresh bid.
Shafi Muhammad V Waseem Ahmad Khan 2011 YLR 2576
2. Non participation of Nazim, Naib Nazim etc.:
Auctioneer did not publicize properly. Dubious nature and fakery of proceedings is apparent from absence of extensive participation of residents of locality and Nazim, Naib Nazim, Councilor, lumberdar or chowkidar. Court set aside the proceeding due to not making publicity.
Muhammad Din alias Mamma V Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd through manager 2006 CLD 760
Messrs Noor Hayyat Industries (Pvt) Ltd through Chief Executive V Bank of Punjab through manager
2006 CLD 242
3. Compensation by the parties:
On settlement of parties in terms that they would compensate the buyer by paying him a specified amount over and above the sale price, the court cancelled court sale in his favour as no rights of auction purchaser is effected thereby.
Shafat Armed V Muhammad Irshad 2007 CLD 1362
Muhammad Ramzan Javed V HBL 2005 CLD 1743
4. Notice under O. XXI, rule 66 is mandatory:
Due to default of notice under O.XXI, R.66, the proceeding of auction stood vitiated.
Shah’s Impex Industries (Pvt) LTD. Through sikandar Ali V IDBP through authorized officer 2009 CLD 1203
Muhammad Hussain V Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan, Hyderabad 2014 MLD 192
5. Preference of prior agreement in notice:
An agreement for sale with the judgement debtor would bind the purchaser at the court sale if he had notice of the agreement.
Zahid Javed V Haji Abdul sattar through legal heirs 2013 YLR 2457
Vita Pakistan Private Limited through Director V Trust Investment Bank LTD. Through Branch Manager and 6 others 2007 CLD 365
Mohiuddin Mola V The province of east Pakistan and 2 others PLD 1962 SC 119
6. Non fulfilment of requirements about reserved price:
Property auctioned on a throwaway price without fixation of any reserve price which did not prima facie appear to be transparent, fair and above board. Supreme Court directed the executing court to conduct fresh auction.
Siraj Ahmad V Faysal Bank Limited PLD 2018 SC 91
National Bank of Pakistan and 117 others V Saf textile Mills LTD and another PLD 2014 SC 283
Lanvin traders karachi V Presiding Officer Banking Court No.2 Karachi 2013 SCMR 1419
Sale of property by auction was confirmed on a price less then reserve price, whereas, the bid has to be started from the reserve price. High court declared said sale illegal.
Noor Badshah V house Building Finance Corporation through District manager house building finance corporation, faislabad. PLD 2006 Lah. 771
7. Delay in deposit of bid amount:
The provisions of Order XXI, Rules 84, 85, and 86 of the C.P.C. are mandatory. A violation of these provisions, particularly the non-payment of 75% of the balance amount within 15 days as required by Order XXI, Rule 85, C.P.C., renders the proceedings null and void. Consequently, the Executing Court is obligated to order a resale of the property in accordance with Order XXI, Rule 86, C.P.C.
Nand Lal V Askari Bank Limited 2018 CLD 1167
Kashif Imran V Altaf Hussain PLD 2018 lah.60
Husnain Cotex LTD V Waseem Sana PLD 2018 lah. 871
However, when the time was consumed in remitting the amount from two accounts which was in control of state bank of Pakistan and not in control of auction Purchaser. Objection of judgement debtor was dismissed
Mst. Amtul Fatima V Syed Tahir Ali Jaffri 2017 CLCN 155
8. Proclamation without approval of court:
Publication of proclamation prior to approval of court is not a proper and legally published proclamation which renders all the subsequent proceedings as nullity in the eye of law.
Messrs Majid and sons V National Bank of Pakistan through Manager 2004 CLD 1616
9. Payment by judgement debtor before acceptance of bid by the court:
Judgement debtor exercised his right of redemption by paying all the decretal amount to decree holder before passing the order of confirmation of bid. Since the bid is just an offer before confirmation, hence no clog is available on right of redemption.
Nazir Ahmad V National Bank of Pakistan 2021 CLD 1404
Muhammad Jawed V First Women Bank LTD 2021 CLD 39
Fayaz Ali V Dr Ahmad Khan Hoti 2017 CLD 1158
10. Objection petitions on material irregularities leading to fraud:
Judgement debtor has to establish material irregularities leading to fraud which could eventually end up at a substantial loss to him.
Bankers Equity Limited V Pangrio Sugar Mills LTD 2017 CLD 1148
An objection petition cannot be filed more than 30 days after the auctioning of property.
Mst. Anwar Sultana V Bank Al-Falah Limited 2014 SCMR 1222
Objections filed under Order XXI, Rule 89 of the C.P.C. without depositing 5% of purchase money are considered as if no application had been made. No formal order of the court is required for it. .
Sarfraz Ahmad V Muhammad Tousaf 2019 MLD 415
Al Hassan Feeds V United Bank Limited PLD 2004 SC 144
However non-deposit by objector can be condoned if auction was violative of O.XXI, R 54(2), 67, 85, 86 C.P.C.
Mst. Nadia Malik V Makki Chemical Industries PVT LTD 2011 SCMR 1675
Court held that objections to be decided after framing of issues and recording of evidence.
Nasir Mushtaq Sheikh V Platinum Commercial Bank Limited through General attorney 2005 CLD 1511
Mirza Naseem Ahmad V Dr. Sadiqa Ashraf 2003 CLD 88
Objections was raised that property was never allotted to judgement-debtor. Executing court rejected objections and held the auction of suit shop as valid.
Syed Abdul Ahad V Abdul Shakoor 2019 CLC 146
11. Non deposit of balance reserve price:
Non deposit of balance sale price 75% renders whole proceedings vitiated in deviation of the mandatory provision of O.XXI R. 85.
Sheikh Ameen ur Rasheed V Sheikh Mamoon ur Rasheed 2023 YLR 2683
Mst Nadia Malik V Makki Chemical Industries PVT Ltd 2011 SCMR 1675
Kausar Parveen V KASB Bank Limited 2010 SCMR 1956
Abdul Qayyum V Shamim Akhtar 2023 YLR 697
12. Sale of property before auction:
Judgement debtor may sell his property for satisfaction of decree even pending auction proceedings.
Mst. Farhat Fareed Sheikh V NIB Bank Limited 2019 CLD 632
13. Next highest bidder has no right:
After default by the first highest bidder, executing court called the next highest bidder without re-auction to match the bid amount and deposit the same. High court set aside said order being illegal.
Muhammad Ali Asghar Sabir Raja V Mst. Sajida Bashir 2006 SCMR 801
Auction Purchaser’s locus standi is not transferable:
During pendency of appeal, applicant purchased suit land from auction purchaser who withdrawn appeal filed against impugned judgement whereby auction sale was set aside. Such withdrawal of appeal amounts to acquiescence, acknowledgement and acceptance of decision. Transferee has no entitlement and locus standi to challenge that judgement.
Mst. Alam Bibi V KASB Bank 2010 CLC 1835
Deed of conveyance by financial institution:
Where mortgaged property is auctioned without intervention of court, therefore, the provision of sec.9 of financial institutions ( Recovery of finance) ordinance, 2001 attracts. In such case, mode of transfer of title would be the execution of conveyance by the said financial institution and not by the court.
MCB through General attorney V Messrs Chaudhary Apparels LTD through Chief Executive and 11 others
2007 CLD 214
Delay in payment of auctioneer fees:
Judgment-debtor would be bound to incur such expenses, and in case of his failure to pay the same within specified period he would pay Rs.1,000 per day as liquidated damages to buyer at sale.
I.D.B.P V Mst. Hassan Bibi 2006 MLD 180
