1984 PLP 1178 (CLC)
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN‑Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, CO‑OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1178 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Lone, J |
| Parties | NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN‑Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, CO‑OPERATIVE SOCIETIES |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1178 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1178 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Lone, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1178 (CLC) (NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN‑Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, CO‑OPERATIVE SOCIETIES). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. H. Najafi for Petitioner.
- Sh. Maqbool Ahmad for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 22nd January, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ Art. 199 ‑ Martial Law Order [M.L.A. 'Zone B'] No. 241 Petitioner challenging validity of letter to enforce recovery under provisions of M.L.O. 241‑Letter though issued but rent recovery made in persuance of decree passed by civil Court‑Writ petition, held, became infructuous. JUDGMENT A money suit filed by the Montgomery Central Co‑operative Bank Ltd., Montgomery, now called at the Punjab Provincial Co‑operative Bank Ltd., Sahiwal, against the petitioner Bank was decreed by the trial Court on 28‑2‑1970. Against this decree the petitioner filed R. F. A. No. 104 of 1970. During its pendency, with the leave of the Court, on furnishing of the bank‑guarantee by the respondent, in execution of the decree, the decretal amount was realised, Later on, due to the change in law whereby the pecuniary jurisdiction., of the District Judges was enhanced, the R.F.A. was transferred to the 'earned District Judge, Lahore. It was reportedly assigned to the Court of Mehr Muhammad Nawaz, Addl. District Judge and as stated by the respondent's learned counsel, it was dismissed for non‑prosecution on 24‑7‑1980.
2. While the R. F. A. was sub judice before this Court the Assistant Registrar sent a letter Annexure 'A' to the petitioner Bank, expressing hi intention to enforce the recovery under the provisions of M. L. O.
241. The validity of this letter has been assailed through this writ petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The stand taken on behalf of the respondents is that though this letter was issued but no further proceedings under M. L. O. 241 were taken and the recovery in question has been made in pursuance of the decree passed by the civil Court, and that, therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous. Placed in this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not have much to say in support of the writ petition. In view of the facts stated above, the writ petition is disposed of being infructuous with no order, as to costs. M. A. R Petition disposed of.
Judgment & Decree
A money suit filed by the Montgomery Central Co‑operative Bank Ltd., Montgomery, now called at the Punjab Provincial Co‑operative Bank Ltd., Sahiwal, against the petitioner Bank was decreed by the trial Court on 28‑2‑1970. Against this decree the petitioner filed R. F. A. No. 104 of 1970. During its pendency, with the leave of the Court, on furnishing of the bank‑guarantee by the respondent, in execution of the decree, the decretal amount was realised, Later on, due to the change in law whereby the pecuniary jurisdiction., of the District Judges was enhanced, the R.F.A. was transferred to the 'earned District Judge, Lahore. It was reportedly assigned to the Court of Mehr Muhammad Nawaz, Addl. District Judge and as stated by the respondent's learned counsel, it was dismissed for non‑prosecution on 24‑7‑1980.
2. While the R. F. A. was sub judice before this Court the Assistant Registrar sent a letter Annexure 'A' to the petitioner Bank, expressing hi intention to enforce the recovery under the provisions of M. L. O.
241. The validity of this letter has been assailed through this writ petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The stand taken on behalf of the respondents is that though this letter was issued but no further proceedings under M. L. O. 241 were taken and the recovery in question has been made in pursuance of the decree passed by the civil Court, and that, therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous. Placed in this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not have much to say in support of the writ petition. In view of the facts stated above, the writ petition is disposed of being infructuous with no order, as to costs. M. A. R Petition disposed of.