2006 PLP 377 (CLD)
HABIB BANK LIMITED through Branch Manager — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 377 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HABIB BANK LIMITED through Branch Manager — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM and 3 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 377 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 377 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 377 (CLD) (HABIB BANK LIMITED through Branch Manager — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Kazim Khan for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S.19
Auction of mortgaged property--Objection petition stating that mortgaged property had been exchanged through a decree of civil court, and that objector had deposited with decree-holder/Bank more than Rs.16,00,000
Bank claimed outstanding amount to be Rs.40,00,000
Decision of executing court that Bank was estopped to claim Rs.40,00,000 for having itself fixed Rs.16,00,000 as reserve price of mortgaged property for its auction
High Court, with consent of parties, accepted appeal, set aside impugned order and remanded case to executing court for its decision in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
A preliminary and a final decree was passed on 11-6-1996 and 3-3-1998 in favour of the appellant. It filed an execution application. The respondents preferred an objection petition stating that the mortgaged property was exchanged vide decree dated 30-10-1991 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Faisalabad and that the objection petitioner has deposited Rs. 15,00,000 with the Habib Bank Ltd. and another amount of Rs.1,29,542 as mark-up and that the Property in question could not be auctioned. The Bank contested the application and stated that an amount of Rs.40,00,000 was outstanding. The learned Judge Banking Court-I, Faisalabad held that when the property was put to auction the Bank itself had fixed the reserve price of the property as Rs.16,00,000 as such it is estopped from claiming Rs. 40, 00.000.
2. At the very outset the learned counsel for the respondents states that he has no objection to the acceptance of this appeal and the case may be remanded to the Banking Court for decision afresh. The offer of the learned counsel for the respondents is acceptable to the learned counsel for the appellant.
3. In view of the statements of the learned counsel for the parties this appeal is allowed, the impugned order dated 17-5-2005 is set aside and the case is remanded to the Banking Court for decision afresh in accordance with law, where the parties shall be at liberty to agitate all points. The parties shall appear before the learned Judge Banking Court-I, Faisalabad on 15-2-2006. C.M. Nos. 24 and 25-C of 2006 Since the main appeal has been disposed of, these applications have become infructuous and are disposed of accordingly. S.A.K./H-2/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.