2005 PLP 1692 (CLD)
Mst. SHAMSHAD AKHTAR and 4 others — Appellants Versus DOHA BANK LIMITED and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1692 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Zahid Hussain and Syed Sakhi Hussain Bokhari, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. SHAMSHAD AKHTAR and 4 others — Appellants Versus DOHA BANK LIMITED and 2 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 1692 (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 1692 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Zahid Hussain and Syed Sakhi Hussain Bokhari, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1692 (CLD) (Mst. SHAMSHAD AKHTAR and 4 others — Appellants Versus DOHA BANK LIMITED and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nadeem Ahmad Sh. for Appellants.
- Rashdeen Nawaz for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th January, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 19 & 22
Order dismissing objection petition before Executing Court had been assailed by appellants Bank had candidly stated that objection petition filed by appellants could be heard and decided by Executing Court after affording opportunity of hearing to the appellants
Impugned order, was set aside, in circumstances with the result that objection petition filed by appellant would be deemed pending which would be heard and decided afresh in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.
An objection petition filed by the appellants before the learned Executing Court through C.M. No.339-13 of 1999 was dismissed vide order dated 28-3-2000, which has been assailed through this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent-Bank/decree holder has candidly stated that the objection petition filed by the appellants can be heard and decided by the learned Executing Court afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the appellants. This suggestion has been accepted by the learned counsel for the appellants. In that view of the matter order dated 28-3-2000 is set aside as a result C.M. No.339-B of 1999 (objection petition filed by the appellants) will be deemed pending, which shall be heard and decided afresh in accordance with law. The appeal is accepted to this extent accordingly with no order as to costs. H.B.T./S-287/L Appeal accepted.