2002 PLP 1279 (CLD)
AMJAD LATIF and 5 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1279 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ |
| Parties | AMJAD LATIF and 5 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1279 (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 2002 PLP 1279 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1279 (CLD) (AMJAD LATIF and 5 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asghar Hameed Bhutta for Appellants.
- Mian Azhar Hussain for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 18th April, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.22‑‑‑Banking Tribunal Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), S.6‑‑ Appeal‑‑‑Conditional leave to appear and defend the suit, non‑compliance of‑‑‑Decree without trial ‑‑‑Banking Court while passing judgment and decree had neither referred to the leave granting order nor reached the conclusion that the conditional leave‑granting order was not complied with by the appellants‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑High Court found no justification for the suit of the Bank being decreed without trial as a regular suit at least in respect of the present appellants, who were legal representatives of the borrower`‑‑Judgment and decree passed by the Banking Court were set aside and the case was remanded to the Banking Court for decision afresh‑‑‑Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.‑‑‑We have already noted the reasons for admitting this appeal to regular hearing in our order, dated 28‑2‑2002. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent‑Bank does not deny that leave to defend was granted to defendant No.1, namely, Abdul Latif vide order, dated 5‑5‑1988 passed by the learned Special Court (Banking). Multan. He merely states that the said leave was granted conditionally, as stated in para.3 of the aforesaid order, requiring the appellant to furnish personal surety in the sum of Rs.3,66,000.
2. We note that the learned Banking Court while passing the order. dated 9‑2‑2002, impugned in the present appeal, has not even referred to the earlier order, dated 5‑5‑1988 nor has it reached the effectual conclusion that the conditional leave‑granting order was not complied with by the appellant. In this view of the matter, we find no justification for the suit of the respondent‑Bank being decreed without trial as a regular long cause at least in respect of the present appellants who are legal representatives of Muhammad Latif. In the above circumstances, the impugned judgment and decree, dated 9‑2‑2002 are set aside. The case is sent back to the learned Banking Court No.1, Faisalabad for decision. This appeal is allowed in the above terms. Q.M.H./M.A.K./A‑474/L Appeal allowed.