1996 MLD 680 (PLP)
Mrs. ZIA FARHAT and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, SPECIAL COURT (BANKING)‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1996 MLD 680 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, J |
| Parties | Mrs. ZIA FARHAT and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, SPECIAL COURT (BANKING)‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 MLD 680 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 MLD 680 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 MLD 680 (PLP) (Mrs. ZIA FARHAT and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, SPECIAL COURT (BANKING)‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Jamshed Ali and Syed Mansoor Ali Shah for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.8‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.47 & O.XXI, R.23‑A‑‑‑Dismissal of objection application summarily by Banking Court allegedly on the ground that judgment‑debtors had failed to furnish security as required by O.XXI, R.23‑A, C.P.C. without determining whether objectors were liable to furnish security and if so, the amount of security and nature thereof‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Banking Court, would in first instance determine as to whether objectors would be liable to furnish security in terms of OXXI, R.23‑A, C.P.C. and if so, it would pass express order giving specific date on or before which they would furnish security, the amount of security as also nature thereof and further proceedings in such case would not be taken unless direction of Court was complied with.
Judgment & Decree
Writ Petition No.2877 of 1995, decided on 22nd March, 1995. ‑‑‑‑S.8‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.47 & O.XXI, R.23‑A‑‑‑Dismissal of objection application summarily by Banking Court allegedly on the ground that judgment‑debtors had failed to furnish security as required by O.XXI, R.23‑A, C.P.C. without determining whether objectors were liable to furnish security and if so, the amount of security and nature thereof‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Banking Court, would in first instance determine as to whether objectors would be liable to furnish security in terms of OXXI, R.23‑A, C.P.C. and if so, it would pass express order giving specific date on or before which they would furnish security, the amount of security as also nature thereof and further proceedings in such case would not be taken unless direction of Court was complied with. Syed Jamshed Ali and Syed Mansoor Ali Shah for Petitioners. It is manifest from the order, dated 22‑12‑1994 passed by the learned Special Judge, Banking that the question as to whether in an application moved by the judgment‑debtor under section 47, C.P.C. he was required to furnish security/surety under Order 21, Rule 23‑A, C.P.C. was kept open and the learned counsel for the petitioners was directed to satisfy the Court on the next date of hearing as to whether furnishing of such security was necessary in such an application. On the next date of hearing i.e. 7‑2‑1995 the learned Special Judge, Banking proceeded to pass order for dismissal of the objection petition made under section 47, C.P.C. by the petitioners summarily observing that they had failed to furnish security as required by Order 21, rule 23(A), C.P.C., without determining that even if the petitioners were held to be liable to furnish security in the said objection petition it was the Court which was to pass an express order for furnishing of security and nature of quantum etc. The Court has passed the order for the attachment of the property in execution of decree and fixed the next date as 30‑4‑1995.
2. The learned Special Judge, Banking shall in the first instance determine the question as to whether the petitioners in such an objection petition would be liable to furnish security as envisaged by Order 21, Rule 23‑A, C.P.C. and if it comes to the conclusion that they were bound to do so it shall pass an express order giving specific date on or before which they shall furnish the security, the amount of security as also the nature thereof and further proceedings in the case shall not be taken unless this direction is complied with.
3. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. A.A./Z-17/L Order accordingly