2003 PLP 51 (CLD)
HABIB BANK LIMITED‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus Messrs MEHMOOD SABRI BUSINESS CORPORATION and 2
| Citation | 2003 PLP 51 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Maului Anwarul Haq and Parvez Ahmad, JJ |
| Parties | HABIB BANK LIMITED‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus Messrs MEHMOOD SABRI BUSINESS CORPORATION and 2 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 51 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 51 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Maului Anwarul Haq and Parvez Ahmad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 51 (CLD) (HABIB BANK LIMITED‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus Messrs MEHMOOD SABRI BUSINESS CORPORATION and 2). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th August, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 6 & 9‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, R.17‑‑ Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.9‑‑‑Suit for recovery of loan amount‑‑‑Suit was decreed against two defendants, but was dismissed against third defendant‑‑‑Bank contended that all defendants were jointly liable to pay the suit amount and prayed for amendment of plaint‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Banking Tribunal due to clerical error in plaint had not considered the matter properly‑‑‑Application contained particulars of such clerical errors in plaint vis‑a‑vis a reference to various defendants‑‑‑Proposed amendment, if allowed, would not change the nature and scope of suit and same was necessary for effective decision of entire controversy between parties‑‑‑High Court permitted Bank to amend plaint, accepted appeal, set aside impugned judgment/decree to the extent of third defendant and remanded case to Banking Court, where Bank would file amended plaint and a notice in terms of S.9 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 would be issued to such defendant and matter would then be decided in accordance with law. Shams Mehmood Mirza for Plaintiff.
Judgment & Decree
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑‑‑The appellant‑Bank filed a suit for recovery of money against the respondents. A notice was issued and a reply was filed by respondent No.3. The learned Tribunal after considering the said reply in the light of the contents of the plaint proceeded to decree the suit as against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and dismissed the same as against respondent No.3 vide judgment and decree dated 10‑3‑1996.
2. Learned counsel contends that the learned Tribunal failed to read the plaint, which clearly made out a case against respondent No.3 inasmuch as he was liable to pay the suit amount jointly with respondents Nos. 1 and
2. Presses C.M. No.903 of 2001 praying for amendment of the plaint. No one has turned up for the respondents, who are presented by a learned counsel whose name stand published in the cause list for today, therefore, the respondents are proceeded against ex parte.
3. We have examined the records in the light of the submissions of the learned counsel. We do find that because of a clerical error in the plaint, as pointed out in the said application, the matter was not properly considered by the learned Tribunal. The said application contains the particulars of the said clerical errors in the plaint vis‑a-vis reference to the various respondents/defendants therein. We do find that in case the proposed amendment is allowed the nature and scope of the suit would not be changed and the same is necessary for an effective decision of the entire controversy between the parties. We, therefore, allow the said application and permit the appellant to amend the plaint accordingly.
4. As stated by us above, the matter has not been properly considered because of the said defect in the plaint, which now stands amended. The R.F.A. is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment and decree of the learned Tribunal vis‑a‑vis the respondent No.3 defendant No.3 is set aside. The case is remanded back to the learned Banking Court where the appellant shall put in the amended plaint and a notice in terms of section 9 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 shall be issued to respondent No.3 and the matter shall be thereafter decided in accordance with law. No order as to costs. S.A.K./H‑107/L Case remanded.