CLD 2005

2005 PLP 1662 (CLD)

MUHAMMAD YASIN — Petitioner Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. through Zonal Chief and 2 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Writ Petition No. 11139 of 1999, heard on 11th June, 2003.
Honorable Judges
Mian Hamid Farooq, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2005 PLP 1662 (CLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Mian Hamid Farooq, J
Parties MUHAMMAD YASIN — Petitioner Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. through Zonal Chief and 2 others — Respondents
Primary Law Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1662 (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 1662 (CLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Hamid Farooq, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1662 (CLD) (MUHAMMAD YASIN — Petitioner Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. through Zonal Chief and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)

Representation

  • Nemo for Petitioner.
  • Ashar Ellahi for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 11th June, 2003.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 9

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199

Constitutional petition

Competency

Petitioner had raised factual controversy in the Constitutional petition, which could not be undertaken by High Court in exercise of said jurisdiction

Appropriate forum for redressal of grievance of petitioner was the Court of plenary jurisdiction, which was competent to resolve factual controversy, after calling upon parties to prove their respective claims after recording evidence

Petitioner being a customer, could file suit for redressal of alleged grievance before Banking Court under S.9 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Efficacious and adequate remedy being available to petitioner, Constitutional petition, was not competent.

Judgment & Decree

The petitioner has filed the present Constitutional petition with the following prayer:-- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the instant writ petition may kindly be accepted and the respondent No.3 be directed to return the sale-deed of the petitioner as mentioned in the writ petition immediately."

2. Upon the examination of the contents of the present petition, I find that the petitioner has raised factual controversy, which cannot be undertaken by this Court, in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. I feel that the appropriate forum for the redressal of the grievance of the petitioner, is the Court of plenary jurisdiction, which is competent to resolve factual controversy, after calling upon the parties to prove their respective claims, after recording the evidence.

3. In addition to that, the petitioner is, admittedly a 'customer', therefore, he can file a suit for the redressal of his alleged grievance before the learned Banking Court under section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, thus, an efficacious and adequate remedy is available to the petitioner. The present petition is hit by Article 199(1) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, therefore, not competent.

4. Upshot of the above discussion is that the present petition is incompetent and not maintainable, thus, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T.M-2098/L Petition dismissed.