2010 PLP 716 (CLD)
ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. — Appellant Versus SHIFA LABORATORIES through Sole Proprietor and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 716 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. — Appellant Versus SHIFA LABORATORIES through Sole Proprietor and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 716 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 716 (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: 2010 PLP 716 (CLD) (ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. — Appellant Versus SHIFA LABORATORIES through Sole Proprietor and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Saleem Shehnazi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 12-Appeal, limitation for determination
Appellant applied for certified copy of impugned judgment on the very next day of the judgment
Certified copy of the judgment was prepared and received by the appellant 6 days after the preparation of certified copy
Time would commence with effect from the date when the first copy of the impugned judgment was received by the appellant.
Judgment & Decree
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.
The impugned judgment and decree in this case is passed on 17-9-1996. The appellant applied for its certified copy on 18-9-1996. The certified copy was prepared on 24-9-1996 and was collected on the same day by the' appellant. The appeal was, however, filed on 30-10-1996 which is beyond the period of limitation by six days.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has explained that the appeal was filed on the basis of another certified copy that was applied by the appellant on 22-9-1996 and was received on the date of its preparation, that is 17-10-1996. The appeal has been filed within time with reference to the said certified copy.
3. The petition taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is not justified because the appellant came into possession of a certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree on 24-9-1996 and the fact that such certified copy was not utilized for the purpose of appeal, is not relevant. Consequently, time is deemed to have commenced with effect from the said date and not the date of preparation of the second certified copy that is 17-10-1996. As a result, this appeal is time-barred and is dismissed.
4. Cross objections filed by the respondents shall come up for hearing on a date to be fixed by the office. H.B.T./A/58/L Appeal dismissed.