P L D 1996 Lahore 331 (PLP)
FARM AIDS and others ‑‑‑ Appellants Versus DEAUCHE BANK ‑‑‑ Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1996 Lahore 331 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum and Sharif Hussain Bokhari, JJ |
| Parties | FARM AIDS and others ‑‑‑ Appellants Versus DEAUCHE BANK ‑‑‑ Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1996 Lahore 331 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1996 Lahore 331 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum and Sharif Hussain Bokhari, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1996 Lahore 331 (PLP) (FARM AIDS and others ‑‑‑ Appellants Versus DEAUCHE BANK ‑‑‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shahid Hussain Qadri for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVHI of 1984)‑ ‑‑‑‑ S. 9, proviso ‑‑‑ Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.151 ‑‑‑ Decree of specified amount against defendant ‑‑‑ Defendant while filing appeal against such decree failed to comply with proviso of S.9,. Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, whereby no appeal filed by defendani could be entertained unless he had deposited, decretal amount with the Banking Tribunal‑‑‑Plaintiff' s application in terms of S.151, C.P.C. praying dismissal of appeal for non‑compliance with proviso of S.9, Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 ‑‑‑ Defendant's plea that hearing of application be adjourned on the ground that in some connected matters his lis was pending adjudication before Supreme Court, was not acceded to. on the ground that question before Supreme Court was not in issue before the Court‑‑Defendant having filed appeal without compliance with S.9, Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, same was not competent ‑‑‑ High Court, however, declined to dismiss appeal without providing opportunity to defendant to deposit requisite amount in terms of S.9, Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984‑‑Defendant. was directed to deposit. amount claimed in suit within three months and on deposit of such amount proceedings in execution would remain stayed Pervaiz Ahmad Khan Burki, for the Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
This is an application under section 151 of the C.P.C. praying that the appeal be dismissed. as the appellant has failed to comply with the proviso of section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 which provides that no appeal filed by the defendant shall be entertained unless he deposits the decretal amount claimed in the suit with the Banking Tribunal.
2. Mr. Shahid Hussain Qadri, learned counsel for the appellant has further stated that the appellant filed a Constitutional petition in which he has challenged the vires of the various provisions of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 including section 9 and that the Constitutional petition has been referred to a larger Bench. He, however points out that the learned Single Judge while doing so, it vacated that stay order granted to the petitioner against the execution of the decree and that the said order of the learned Single Judge has been assailed by filing a petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court in which leave has been granted and the matter is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. He requests hearing of this application be adjourned. 3 We regret our inability to accede to the request of the learned counsel, for the. question before the Supreme Court as also the matter in the Constitution petition filed by the petitioner, is not in issue before us. The present appeal having been filed under section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 by the appellant himself, he has as such to comply with the provisions thereof. We are, however, not inclined to dismiss the appeal without providing opportunity to the appellant to deposit the amount as required by the above provisions. In view of what has been stated above the C.M. is allowed and tile appellant is diivqted to deposit the amount claimed in the suit within three months from today. C. M. I of 1994 Heard. If the appellant deposits the amount in question as directed abo4, the proceedings for ex'ecution shall remain stayed. The C.M. is disposed of. A.k/F‑208/L Order accordingly.