2005 PLP 1565 (CLD)
Messrs KHALID OIL MILLS through Sole Proprietor and 2 others — Appellants Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED through Manager/Attorney — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1565 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Messrs KHALID OIL MILLS through Sole Proprietor and 2 others — Appellants Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED through Manager/Attorney — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1565 (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 1565 (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 1565 (CLD) (Messrs KHALID OIL MILLS through Sole Proprietor and 2 others — Appellants Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED through Manager/Attorney — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Irfan Wyne for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.10 & 22
Application for leave to defend the suit
Availing the facility of loan was not denied by the defendants
Only ground urged by the defendants for grant of leave to defend was to the effect that stocks of the defendants pledged with the Bank lying in the godown were stolen/ misappropriated at the instance of the Bank Manager
Defendants had been nominated as accused in the criminal case got registered in connection with the misappropriation/ theft of stocks and they were on bail-Such plea of defendants thus, could not advantageously be used by them with reference to the recovery of the amount in question through the suit of the Bank which had been decreed by the Trial Court on refusal to grant leave to defend the suit
Judgment of the Trial Court showed that the defendants were quite lethargic and indolent towards pursuing their application for leave to defend the suit which otherwise did not disclose any triable issue
Trial Court had examined the matter in its true perspective with reference to the material available on the file and rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree, to which no exception could be taken
Bank, however, submitted that the house of the defendants shown to be mortgaged with the Bank shall not be put to auction and the decretal amount will be firstly attempted to be realized from auctioning the other property of the defendants duly mortgaged with the Bank .and in case the decretal amount was not satisfied from said auctioning, then and then only house of the defendants shall be put to auction
Said statement of the Bank was made part of the order of the High Court.
Judgment & Decree
In the suit of the respondent-Bank for recovery of Rs.4,691,988 along with mark-up, appellant's application for leave to defend the same was dismissed by the learned Judge Banking Court No.II, Multan, and the suit was decreed forthwith as prayed for vide judgment and decree dated 4-10-2004. Hence this appeal under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, is directed against the same.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. Availing of the facility of loan in question has not been denied by the appellants. The only ground vehemently urged by the learned counsel is to the effect that stock of the appellants pledged with the respondent-Bank lying in the godown was stolen/misappropriated at the instance of the Manager of the respondent-Bank. On a Court question it is conceded that a criminal case has been registered qua the said occurrence wherein the appellants have been nominated as accused and they are on bail. This plea with reference to the institution of criminal case cannot be advantageously used by the appellants with reference to the recovery of the amount in question through the suit of the respondent-Bank which has been decreed vide impugned judgment and decree.
4. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the appellants were quite lethargic and indolent towards pursuing their application for leave to defend the suit which A otherwise did not disclose any triable issue and the learned trial Court did examine the matter in its true perspective with reference to the material available on the file, thus rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree and no exception with regard thereto can be taken in this appeal and the same stands dismissed, leaving the parties to pay their own costs.
5. However, on a Court question, the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the house of the appellants shown to be mortgaged with the respondent-Bank shall not be put to auction and the decretal amount will be firstly attempted to be realized from auctioning the other property of the appellants duly mortgaged with the respondent-Bank. In case the decretal amount is not satisfied from auctioning the other property of the appellants mortgaged with the respondent-Bank, then and then only house in question of the appellants shall be put to auction. This statement shall also form a part of this order. M.B.A. /K-114/L Order accordingly.