2022 PLP 227 (CLD)
GENERAL MANAGER, HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE COMPANY LTD., PESHAWAR through Law Manager/Branch Manager — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD FAYAZ KHAN — Respondent
| Citation | 2022 PLP 227 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GENERAL MANAGER, HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE COMPANY LTD., PESHAWAR through Law Manager/Branch Manager — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD FAYAZ KHAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 227 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2022 PLP 227 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2022 PLP 227 (CLD) (GENERAL MANAGER, HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE COMPANY LTD., PESHAWAR through Law Manager/Branch Manager — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD FAYAZ KHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9 & 22
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 132
Enforcement of money charged on immovable property
Appellant was House Building Finance Company and suit filed by the Company was dismissed by Banking Court on the ground of limitation
Held, in the event of failure on the part of respondents/defendants to pay off their liabilities, the appellant/company should have filed recovery suits against them within twelve years as envisaged under Art. 132 of Limitation Act, 1908
Such period of limitation was provided when money sued for had become due so as to enforce payment of money charged upon immovable property
As against the same, appellant company filed recovery suits beyond the prescribed period of limitation
Banking Court had rightly appreciated question of limitation while handing down the findings whereby recovery suit was dismissed as time barred
Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
QAISER RASHID KHAN, C.J.
Through this single judgment, we propose to decide this F.A.B. No. 28-P/2016 as well as connected F.A.Bs. Nos.29-P, 30-P, 31-P, 33-P, 34-P, 35- P and 36-P of 2016 as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals, wherein the appellant-plaintiff has called in question the judgments and decrees dated 08.06.2016 of the learned Judge, Banking Court-II, Peshawar, whereby his suits against the respondents-defendants have been dismissed on the ground of limitation.
2. The record depicts that the various respondents-defendants in all the appeals had availed of house building finance facility from the appellant-corporation on different occasions during eighties and nineties and by way of security, they had mortgaged their respective properties in favour of the appellant-corporation. Thereafter, on the default of the respondents-defendants to pay off their liabilities through installments in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreements, entered into between the parties, the appellant-corporation was constrained to file several recovery suits against them before the learned Judge, Banking Court-II, Peshawar, which were finally dismissed on the ground of limitation vide the impugned judgments and decrees dated 08.06.2016. Hence, the present appeals by the appellant-corporation.
3. In the event of failure on the part of the respondents-defendants to pay off their liabilities, the appellant-corporation should have filed recovery suits against them within twelve years as envisaged under Article 132 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The said provision of law clearly provides the limitation period of 'Twelve Years' when the money sued for becomes due so as to enforce payment of money charged upon immovable property. As against that, the recovery suites were filed by the appellant-corporation beyond the prescribed period of limitation.
4. During the course of arguments, when questioned as to whether during the intervening period, any payments were made by the respondents-defendants so as to bring the appellant's suits within the period of limitation, the learned counsel for the appellant-corporation frankly states that no such payments towards liquidation of their outstanding dues were made by any of the respondents-defendants. Such being the position, we understand that the learned trial/ Banking Court has rightly appreciated the question of limitation while handing down the impugned findings whereby the recovery suits of the appellant-corporation have been dismissed being time barred.
5. Resultantly, these appeals being without any substance stand dismissed with no order as to costs. MH/279/P Appeals dismissed.