2005 PLP 1660 (CLD)
Messrs AWAN ELECTRONICS (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive and 2 others — Appellants Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Branch Manager and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1660 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Messrs AWAN ELECTRONICS (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive and 2 others — Appellants Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Branch Manager and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Ordinance (XV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1660 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Ordinance (XV of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1660 (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: 2005 PLP 1660 (CLD) (Messrs AWAN ELECTRONICS (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive and 2 others — Appellants Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Branch Manager and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ali Ahmed Awan for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 7, 9, 10 & 12
Application for leave to defend suit
Ex parte decree, setting aside of
Suit by Bank, was decreed ex parte against defendants
Application filed by defendants under S.12 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits & Finances) Ordinance, 1997 for setting aside ex parte decree was rejected by Court holding that Court had no jurisdiction to review its own order, judgment or decree
Present was not the case of review, rather it was for setting aside ex parte decree and defendants on showing "sufficient cause" for their non-appearance, could seek its setting aside
Non-appearance of defendants on date of hearing was not deliberate, but was of a bit of negligence on their part in pursuing their application for leave to appear and defend and for such negligence, awarding a decree for colossal amount would be too harsh
Allowing appeal, application for setting aside ex parte order was accepted with the result that ex parte judgment and decree would also stand set aside
Leave application was directed to be decided within specified period.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
Respondent brought a suit for recovery against the appellants /defendants; appellants filed leave applications, which according to the learned counsel for the respondent, are out of limitation. Anyhow, these applications were fixed for hearing on 10-5-2001, when none represented the appellants/ defendants, consequently, the appellants/ defendants were proceeded ex parte and the suit to the extent of Rs. 1,80,21,544 was decreed in favour of the respondent and against the appellants. Aggrieved of the above, the appellants moved an application under section 12 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, seeking setting aside of the above, which application has been rejected through the impugned order dated 6-10-2001. The main reasoning given by the Court below is that the Court has no jurisdiction to review its own order, judgment or decree.
2. We are afraid, this is not a case of review rather for setting aside ex parte decree, and the appellants, on showing "sufficient cause" for their non-appearance, could seek its setting aside. Thus, if the provisions of section 12 of the Act, were not applicable, the Court should have exercised its powers under Order IX, rule 13, C.P.C., which by virtue of section 7(2) of the Act, was duly applicable'. We are not convinced by the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that non-appearance of the appellant's counsel on the date of hearing, was deliberate and thus entail the consequences of the ex paste decree. Anyhow, we find that the appellants were, however, bit negligent in pursuing their application for leave to appear and defend, and at least, anyone of them should have been present on that date. But for such negligence to award a decree for the colossal amount shall be too harsh, resultantly, by imposing of Rs.10,000, as costs, which to our mind shall be reasonable compensation to the respondent side, the appeal is allowed, the application for setting aside ex parte order is accepted with the result that the ex parte judgment and decree shall also stand set aside the leave application of the appellants, shall be deemed pending and should be decided by the learned Banking Court within one month from the date of first appearance of the Parties before the Court; the parties are directed to appear before the learned Court on 8-5-2003. In case the appellants fail to appear before the Court, on the above date, this appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed. H.B.T./A-790/L Appeal allowed.