1986 PLP 43 (MLD)
HABIB BANK Ltd.‑‑Plaintiff Versus ORIENTAL TEXTILE MILLS Ltd. and 4 others‑‑Defendants
| Citation | 1986 PLP 43 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Nasir Aslam Zahid, J |
| Parties | HABIB BANK Ltd.‑‑Plaintiff Versus ORIENTAL TEXTILE MILLS Ltd. and 4 others‑‑Defendants |
| Primary Law | JUDGMENT, Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 43 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: JUDGMENT, Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 43 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Nasir Aslam Zahid, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 43 (MLD) (HABIB BANK Ltd.‑‑Plaintiff Versus ORIENTAL TEXTILE MILLS Ltd. and 4 others‑‑Defendants). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 22nd August, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑O. XXXIV, R.4‑‑Recovery of loan‑‑Suit for‑‑Preliminary decree Mortgage of property and loan admitted by mortgagors‑‑Parties urging that only preliminary decree may be passed in respect of mortgaged property and if decretal amount was not paid and mortgaged property was ultimately brought' to sale and if there was shortfall, requisite application would be filed by plaintiff bank‑‑Preliminary decree thus was passed in favour of plaintiff bank in Form 5‑A of Appendix D of Schedule to Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in circumstances. Lidaquat Merchant for Plaintiff. Munawar Ghani for Defendants Nos. 1, 2, 4 and
5. Defendant No.3: Ex parte.
Judgment & Decree
Lidaquat Merchant for Plaintiff. Munawar Ghani for Defendants Nos. 1, 2, 4 and
5. Defendant No.3: Ex parte. Date of hearing: 22nd August, 1985. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff‑bank under Order XXXIV of the Civil Procedure Code for the recovery of Rs. 44,69,225,
79. The plaintiff‑bank had advanced a loan to the defendant No.1 company and for the, recovery of the amount the present suit has been filed. Defendants No.2, 3, 4 and 5 are the directors/shareholders/guarantors Defendant No. 2, Muhammad Hanif, Managing Director of defendant No. l
2. Mr. Munawar Ghani, learned counsel for defendants No.1,2,4 and 5 states that the mortgage is admitted, the fact 'that the loan had been given is also admitted but the parties are negotiating with the plaintiff‑bank for giving certain concessions as far as Interest is concerned and they want time to pay the amount due from them. Mr. Munawar Ghani, on the instructions of defendant No.2, who is present, states that he has no objection if a preliminary decree is passed in respect of the mortgaged property but about one year's time may be granted to the defendants, firstly to seek concession in the interest from the plaintiff‑bank and secondly to pay the amount due to the bank. Mr. Munawar Ghani further points out that as far as defendants No.4 and 5 are concerned there is a question of limitation in the way of the plaintiff‑bank. Both the learned counsel state that only a preliminary decree may be passed in respect of the mortgaged property and if the decretal amount is not paid and the mortgaged property is ultimately brought to sale and if there is a shortfall, requisite application will be filed by the plaintiff‑bank and at that time the question of limitation as against defendants Nos.4 and 5 can be decided.
3. A preliminary decree is passed in favour of plaintiff bank in Form 5‑A of Appendix 'D' of the Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, It is declared that the mortgaged property is charged with the payment of Rs.44,69,225.79 with interest at the rate of 14 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till realization with costs. The defendant No.1 will pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 to the decree‑holder on or before 25‑8‑1985 and the balance decretal amount will be payable on or before 31‑8‑1986. H.B.T Order accordingly.