2002 PLP 600 (CLD)
and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus PLATINUM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. through
| Citation | 2002 PLP 600 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus PLATINUM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. through |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 600 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 600 (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: 2002 PLP 600 (CLD) (and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus PLATINUM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. through). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Tariq Saleem Sheikh for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑O.XXXVII, R.3‑‑‑Leave to appear and defend suit‑‑‑Plaintiff upon showing a plausible defense becomes entitled to permission to defend the suit. National Bank of Pakistan v. Messrs Elegzender & Company and 2 others PLD 1987 Lah, 290 ref. Khan A. Hameed for Appellants: Tariq Saleem Sheikh for Respondent. Date of hearing: 14th January, 2002. JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.‑‑‑This appeal impugns the order, dated 26‑5‑2001 passed by the learned Banking Court No.II, Lahore. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the appellants/defendants filed a petition seeking leave to appear and defend within the period of 21 days allowed by law. According to him, the objections taken in the said petition were not duly considered by the learned Banking Court. We asked him to point out to us the objections and to support the same from the record. His first contention was that five documents had been appended with the plaint filed by the respondent Bank. Each of the said document was dated 12‑9‑1998. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that all of these documents could not have been signed on the same date. This is not a well‑founded contention. The said five documents are the following: (i) Financing Agreement. (ii) Facility Letter. (iii) Demand Promissory Note. (iv) Letter of Continuity. (v) Memorandum of deposit of title deed.
3. We do not see any reasons why the aforesaid documents could not have been signed on the same date. As such, this contention of learned counsel is without merit.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to the case titled National Bank of Pakistan v. Messrs Elegzender & Company and 2 others (PLD 1987 Lahore 290) to argue that the appellants became entitled to permission to defend the suit upon showing a plausible defense. This law is well‑settled relating to the provisions of Order XXXVII, C.P.C. In the present case, firstly, as noted above, no plausible defense at all has been shown by the appellants/defendants. Secondly, we note that the earlier law did justify grant of leave when a defendant was able to show a plausible defence. However, the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 under which the respondent‑Bank's suit was filed, required the defendants/appellants to show a serious and bona fide defense before they could be allowed leave to appear and defend. This has not been done. In these circumstances, the precedent cited by learned counsel for the appellants is not relevant. In this view of the matter, this appeal being without merit is dismissed. S.A.K. /M‑990/L Appeal dismissed.