2007 PLP 312 (CLD)
HABIB BANK LIMITED — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ASIF and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 312 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HABIB BANK LIMITED — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ASIF and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 312 (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 2007 PLP 312 (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: 2007 PLP 312 (CLD) (HABIB BANK LIMITED — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ASIF and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Ghayas Anwar for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.9, 19 & 22
Suit, for recovery of loan
Suit filed by Bank having been partially decreed by Banking Tribunal regular first appeal was filed by Bank against that order contending that an amount of Rs.2,11, 000, had wrongly and illegally been denied in the decree
Decreed sum. in (he meantime, was paid by judgment-debtors and execution petition was disposed of accordingly by the Banking Court
When. however appeal came up for hearing before High Court. case was remanded to the Banking Court concerned. and after remand, the Banking Court took up the matter and disposed of the case having become infructuous
Reason that prevailed with Banking Court was the 'disposal of execution petition, which had been consigned to record due to satisfaction of the decree
Fact which had been overlooked by the Banking Court was concerned with grievance of Bank qua that part of the claim which had not been decreed
Said appeal having been remanded to Banking Court. matter required to be heard and determined by the Banking Court on its merits in accordance with law
Banking Court had clearly erred in law in disposing of the suit as having become infructuous
Impugned order, was not maintainable and remand order passed in regular first appeal, stood revived
Parties were directed to cause their presence/representation before Banking Court, for proceedings in the suit in accordance with law. ?
Judgment & Decree
SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.
On 1-11-1995 Chairman Banking Tribunal, Faisalabad partially decreed the suit filed by the appellant-Bank. R.F.A. No.40 of 1997 was filed by the appellant qua the same that an amount of Rs.2,11,000 had wrongly and illegally been denied in the decree. In the meantime the decreed sum was paid by the judgment-debtors and execution petition was disposed of accordingly by the Banking Court. When however the appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court the case was remanded to the Banking Court, Faisalabad on 21-7-2003 in view of the judgment in Messrs Chenab Cement Product (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. Banking Tribunal, Lahore and others (PLD 1996 Lahore 672) and in R.F.A. No.23 of 1996 and R.F.A. No.98 of 1997. After remand the Banking Court No.II, Faisalabad took up the matter and "disposed of having become infructuous" on 14-7-2005. This order is subject-matter of this appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The reason that prevailed with the learned Banking Court was the disposal of the execution petition, which had been consigned to record due to the satisfaction of the decree. The fact which, however, has, been overlooked by the learned Banking Court is that R.F.A. No.40 of 1997 concerned with the grievance of the appellant-Bank qua that part of the claim which had not been decreed. The said appeal having been remanded to the Banking Court, the matter required to be heard and determined by the Banking Court on its merits in accordance with law. It clearly erred in law in disposing of the suit as having become infructuous. Order dated 14-7-2005, therefore, is not sustainable, the same is set aside. As a result the remand order dated 21-7-2003 passed in R.F.A. No.40 of 1997 stands revived. Let the parties cause their presence/representation before the learned Banking Court No.II, Faisalabad on 16-12-2006 for proceedings in the suit in accordance with law. The appeal is accepted in the above terms with no order as to costs. H.B.T./H-40/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.