2005 PLP 1603 (CLD)
Syed KHALID HASSAN and another — Appellants Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and 12 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1603 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Syed KHALID HASSAN and another — Appellants Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and 12 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1603 (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 2005 PLP 1603 (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 1603 (CLD) (Syed KHALID HASSAN and another — Appellants Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and 12 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Imtinan Saeed for Respondent No.1.
- Asher Elahi for Respondents Nos.9 to 12.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9, 10 & 22
Appellants were impleaded as guarantors on the basis of personal guarantees executed by them to secure the liability of principal debtor
Case of appellants was that they had not issued any personal guarantees to secure the liability owed to Bank by principal debtor
Such fact was not denied by the Bank
Appellants having raised a serious and bona fide defence to suit filed by Bank, application of appellants seeking leave to appear and defend suit could not have been dismissed
Allowing appeal, appellants were allowed leave to defend suit filed by the Bank accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
This appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 15-6-1999 passed by the learned Banking Court No.IV, Lahore. The facts of this case are straightforward. National Bank of Pakistan (respondent No.1) filed a suit against the appellants and others to recover a sum of Rs.7,562,949.35. The suit was based on a finance facility advanced by the respondent-Bank to Messrs Pearl Paper Products (Pvt.) Ltd., (defendant/respondent No.2) as principal debtor. The appellants/defendants were impleaded as guarantors on the basis of personal guarantees executed by them to secure the liability of the aforesaid principal debtor.
2. This appeal was filed by Syed Khalid Hassan and Syed Shahid Hassan appellants/defendants. By means of an order passed today on an application under Order 1, rule 10, C.P.C. we have allowed transposition of the names of Mehmood ul-Hassan and Mrs. Farhat Mehmood (who were arrayed as respondents Nos.11 and 12 in this appeal) as appellants.
3. The case of the appellants is that they have not issued any personal guarantees to secure the liability owed to the respondent-Bank by Messrs Pearl Paper Products (Pvt.) Ltd. This fact is not denied by learned counsel for the Bank. In these circumstances, we are not in any doubt that the appellants, namely, Syed Khalid Hassan, Syed Shahid Hassan, Mehmood-ul-Hassan and Mrs. Farhat Mehmood had raised a serious and bona fide defence to the suit filed by the respondent-Bank. As such, their application seeking leave to appear and defend could not have been dismissed. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and the forenamed appellants are allowed leave to defend the suit filed by the respondent-Bank. They shall within fifteen days file their written statements before the Banking Court which shall proceed in the matter as a regular long cause in respect of the four appellants named above. H.B.T./K-222/L Appeal allowed.