2009 PLP 812 (CLD)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Appellant Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Assistant Vice President/Chief Manager — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 812 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Maulvi Anwarul Haq and Syed Asghar Haider, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Appellant Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Assistant Vice President/Chief Manager — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 812 (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 2009 PLP 812 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq and Syed Asghar Haider, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 812 (CLD) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Appellant Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Assistant Vice President/Chief Manager — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khizar Abbas Khan for Appellant.
- Pervaiz Akhtar Tahir for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 25th February, 2009.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9, 12 & 22
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5
Ex parte decree, setting aside of
Application for
Suit filed by the plaintiff-Bank against defendant having been decreed ex parte, the defendant had filed application for setting aside such ex parte decree against him which application was accompanied by application under S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908
Said application had been dismissed in absence of the defendant
Validity--Application could not have been decided on the grounds stated in the order without hearing the defendant or his counsel, whose absence had been explained in the affidavit of the counsel filed with the appeal
Impugned order was set aside with, the result that application would be deemed to be pending and would be decided by the Judge Banking Court after hearing the parties.
Judgment & Decree
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.
A suit filed by the respondent-Bank against the appellant was decreed in the sum of Rs.18,52,837 by a learned Judge, Banking Court-II, Faisalabad, on 29-3-2007. The appellant filed an application under section 12 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, for setting aside of the ex parte decree. The application was accompanied by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The application was taken up on 28-9-2007 in the absence of the appellant and was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant was behind the bars on the said date while the counsel was busy before learned Senior Civil Judge, Faisalabad, in a direction case. Further contention is that the application could have been dismissed for non-prosecution but the learned Judge, Banking Court, proceeded to dismiss it holding it to be time barred and not signed. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order.
3. We have gone through the copies of the records. It is evident on the face of the record that the application was taken up in the absence of the appellant or his counsel. It could not have been decided on the grounds stated in the order without hearing the appellant or his counsel whose absence has been explained in the affidavit of the learned counsel filed with the F.A.O.
4. The F.A.O. accordingly is allowed. The impugned order dated 28-9-2007 is set aside. The result would be that the application filed by the appellant shall be deemed to be pending and shall be decided by the learned Judge, Banking Court-II, Faisalabad, after hearing the parties. No orders as to costs. H.B.T./M-112/L Appeal allowed.