Liberty Mills Limited v. Muslim Cotton Mills (Pvt.) Limited; connected CPLA 917-K/2021

Background

Background

Supreme Court upholds Liberty Mills' Rs227.5m purchase, examines notice and substantial injury, and refuses to revive an expired challenge through review.

Liberty bought industrial property in execution of a banking decree. The High Court treated confirmation as illegal for want of notice but let Liberty pay the reserve price. The Supreme Court considered the original objections, knowledge, causation of injury and the separate limits of a review challenge.

Legal questions

Legal questions

Did the alleged omission of Rule 66(2) notice invalidate this auction sale without proof of substantial injury, and could a challenge to review refusal revive the expired challenge to the original High Court judgment?

Court holding

What the Court decided

On this record, knowledge and opportunity to participate, the pleaded objections and absence of substantial injury prevented treating the sale as a nullity for the notice omission. Rule 66's notice requirement was not abolished. Review refusal did not restart limitation for challenging the original judgment; the review order required separate scrutiny.

Final outcome

Final outcome

Liberty's appeal allowed against the finding that sale confirmation was illegal for want of notice. The Rs227.5 million price remained intact. The judgment-debtors' challenge to the original High Court judgment was time-barred and their challenge to the review refusal was dismissed. Costs to Liberty.

Practical effect

What the decision means in practice

Liberty's sale survived at Rs227.5 million, including its additional Rs102.5 million payment. The judgment-debtors' original-judgment challenge was time-barred, their review challenge failed and they must bear Liberty's costs.

This summary states the immediate effect recorded in the decision. The original judgment and the facts of the particular case remain controlling.

Key legal principles

Key legal principles

• Rule 66(2) requires notice; the judgment did not abolish it.
• On these facts, an omission without substantial injury under Rule 90 did not make the sale a nullity.
• The pleaded grounds and actual knowledge of the auction were material.
• General allegations of fraud or irregularity do not replace particulars.
• Review refusal does not restart limitation for challenging the original judgment; a review order requires separate scrutiny.