1985 PLP 3023 (CLC)
HABIB BANK LIMITED — Plaintiff Versus AL-MEEZAN INTERNATIONAL Ltd. and others — Defendants
| Citation | 1985 PLP 3023 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | K. A. Ghani, J |
| Parties | HABIB BANK LIMITED — Plaintiff Versus AL-MEEZAN INTERNATIONAL Ltd. and others — Defendants |
| Primary Law | (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 3023 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 3023 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: K. A. Ghani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 3023 (CLC) (HABIB BANK LIMITED — Plaintiff Versus AL-MEEZAN INTERNATIONAL Ltd. and others — Defendants). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
0. III. r. 1 & O. XXXVII, r. 3--Summary procedure--Leave to defend suit sought by defendants--Application filed on behalf of one defendant for grant of leave not denying claim in suit and disclosing no triable issues--Affidavit filed by defendant did not disclose facts as would make it incumbent upon plaintiff, to prove consideration or to rebut statement of facts mentioned--Application for leave to defend suit filed by such defendant, held, rightly, rejected in circumstances. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
0. III, r. 1 &
0. XXXVII, r. 3--Summary procedure
Counsel stating in Court that he had received instructions from defendants to appear on their behalf
Counsel, however, neither filing power--of-attorney nor moving application to defend suit--Time prescribed by law to make such application having expired--Statement of facts made in plaint, held, would be deemed to have been admitted by such defendants as well as by remaining defendant who remained absent though properly served-Suit against all defendants decreed in circumstances. Ibrahim Pishori for Plaintiff. Hebibur Rehman for Defendant No.
1. Masood Shehryar for Defendants Nos. 2 to 6 and 8.
Judgment & Decree
Masood Shehryar, Advocate stated that he had instructions from defendants Nos. 2 to 6 and 8 to appear on their behalf and, therefore, gave undertaking to file Vakalatnama which however has not been received by him as the defendant are out of country. The defendant No. 7 though served is absent.
2. On behalf of the defendant No. 1 who is represented by Mr. Niaz Ahmed, Provisional Liquidator appointed by order passsed on 8-6-1981 in Judicial Miscellaneous No: 8 of 1981, has filed an application under Order XXXVII, rule 3, C.P.C. for grant of leave unconditionally to appear and defend the suit. In support of the application Mr. Niaz Ahmed has filed his own affidavit a perusal of 'which however shows that the claim in the suit has not been denied. In this application no triable issues have been disclosed. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 that the plaintiff has obtained permission of the Court to file the suit and that such a fact has been pleaded in paras. 11 and 12 of the plaint. Certified copy of the relevant order has also been produced as Annexure 'G' to the plaint. In view of the above circumstances being of the opinion that the affidavit filed by the defendant No. 1 does not disclose facts as would make it incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove consideration or to rebut the statement of facts mentioned in the plaint, the application for leave to defened the suit filed by the defendant No. 1 is rejected.
3. Mr. Masood Shehryar, Advocate who had instruction from defendants Nos. 2 to 6 and 8 has neither filed his power for the said defendents nor any application for leave to defend has been moved by the said defendants. The time prescribed by the law to make such an application having expired, the statement of facts made in the plaint are deemed to have been admitted by them. 4.? Defendant No. 7 though served has also chosen to remain absent. She has also not filed any application seeking premission to appear and defend the suit. In her case, also, time for making such an application has expired in the circumstances, the facts stated in the plaint as to her liability are also deemed to have been admitted.
5. For the reasons stated above the suit against all the defendents is decreed as prayed. Preliminary decree in Form 5-A Appendix 'D' shall also be drawn up against the mortgagor, the defendant No. 3 Against the other defendants the suit is decreed for Rs.10,30,530.85. All the defendants shall be liable to pay the decretal amount jointly and severally. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs of the suit and interest at the rate to of 14% per annum with quarterly rests on the amount decreed as above from the date of suit till payment. A.A.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Suits decreed.