2002 PLP 1247 (CLD)
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK through Attorney of Bank‑‑‑Appellant Versus Messrs ASIAN BODY BUILDING WORKS and 9 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1247 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ |
| Parties | STANDARD CHARTERED BANK through Attorney of Bank‑‑‑Appellant Versus Messrs ASIAN BODY BUILDING WORKS and 9 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1247 (CLD)?
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 2002 PLP 1247 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1247 (CLD) (STANDARD CHARTERED BANK through Attorney of Bank‑‑‑Appellant Versus Messrs ASIAN BODY BUILDING WORKS and 9 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asim Nazir for Appellant.
- Sh. Umar Draz for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st May, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 6 & 12‑‑‑Suit for recovery of bank loan‑‑‑Leave to appear and defend suit unconditionally‑ ‑‑Entitlement‑‑ Leave application filed by defendants was pending when Banking Court rejected the plaint on the ground that Bank had written, off the amount sought to be recovered after procuring sanction from State Bank of Pakistan ‑‑‑Validity‑Plaint with its original contents could not have been rejected on account of letter, dated 5‑2‑1981 issued by Bank to defendants on account of sanction for writing off the loan -Such subsequent development at the best had given a plausible defence to defendants to seek leave to appear and defend unconditionally‑‑‑Banking Court should not have hastily rejected the plaint, rather should have granted the leave and thereafter on the basis of written statement and issues framed should have considered the effect of said letter and sanction of State Bank of Pakistan for writing‑off the loan‑‑‑High Court accepted appeal and set aside impugned order observing that suit would be deemed pending before Banking Court, which would decide the leave application of defendants in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.‑‑‑Appellant, filed a suit for the recovery of an amount of Rs.5,88,838.56 against the respondents under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979; the respondents applied for the leave to appear and defend, which application was yet pending and the Banking Court, Lahore, through the impugned order, rejected, the plaint of the appellant on the ground that the loan which is sought to be recovered from the respondents, has been written off by the appellant, after procuring sanction from the State Bank of Pakistan.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends, that such write‑off was not meant for the purposes of giving tip the claim of the appellant, rather the permission was sought from the State Bank of Pakistan, for showing the said amount as written‑off for the accounting purposes. It is further contended, that the plaint can only be rejected, if it does not disclose any cause of action, on the basis of its contents and the documents appended thereto, no date or material provided by the defence, should be looked into. At the best. considering the subsequent events/ happening. after the filing of the suit, the Court below, should have granted leave to appear and defend to the respondents, but it was not a case for the rejection of the plaint.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Without dilating much upon, qua the effect of the letter, dated 5‑2‑1981, which was issued by the appellant to the respondents, on account of sanction allowed, for the writing‑off, of the loan, we find that the plaint with its original contents could not have been rejected. The subsequent development, at the best, had given a plausible defence to the respondents, to seek leave to appear and defend unconditionally, thus, the Court should not have hastily rejected the plaint, rather should have granted the leave, and thereafter, on account of the written statement of the respondents and framing of issues considered the effect of the latter written by the appellant, and the sanction granted by the State Bank of Pakistan, for the writing‑off the loan.
4. In the light of above, by allowing this appeal, the impugned order rejecting the plaint of the appellant, is set aside, the case of the appellant shall be deemed to be pending before the Banking Court. Lahore the Court shall decide the leave application of the respondents, in view of the observations, made above, and shall decide the matter in accordance with law. S.A.K./S‑437/L Case remanded.