2004 PLP 806 (CLD)
NASIM IQBAL MALIK and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED through Chief Manager and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 806 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ |
| Parties | NASIM IQBAL MALIK and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED through Chief Manager and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 806 (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 2004 PLP 806 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 806 (CLD) (NASIM IQBAL MALIK and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED through Chief Manager and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Arshad Mehmood for Appellants.
- Mian Qamar‑uz‑Zaman for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.10, 17 & 22‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.152‑‑‑Consent decree, correction of‑‑‑Consent to decree in the suit in favour of Bank was given only by two defendants and not by appellants‑defendants, whose leave application was pending‑‑‑‑ Banking Court dismissed appellant's application seeking correction of decree passed against them illegally High Court set aside impugned decree to the extent of appellants with observations that their leave application would be deemed pending before Banking court to be decided after hearing parties, and that decree against rest of the defendants would remain intact.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Ss.10, 17 & 22‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.152‑‑‑Consent decree, correction of‑‑‑Consent to decree in the suit in favour of Bank was given only by two defendants and not by appellants‑defendants, whose leave application was pending‑‑‑‑ Banking Court dismissed appellant's application seeking correction of decree passed against them illegally High Court set aside impugned decree to the extent of appellants with observations that their leave application would be deemed pending before Banking court to be decided after hearing parties, and that decree against rest of the defendants would remain intact. Mian Arshad Mehmood for Appellants. Mian Qamar‑uz‑Zaman for Respondents. Learned counsel for the appellants states that as per the statement of defendant No.3 for himself and on behalf of defendant No.1 the company, the suit was only decreed, with the consent of the counsel for the Bank, to the extent of said defendants; neither any consent was given by the appellants nor any judgment was passed against them, resulting into the consent decree, therefore, the decree against the appellants was erroneous, therefore, appellants moved an application for the correction of the decree, which has been illegally passed and does not correspond to the consent judgment, whereas it necessarily had to follow the same. It is further stated that the application for leave to appear and defend, filed by the appellants was yet pending and the same should have been independently decided by the Court, irrespective of the consent of the other defendants, recorded by the Court on 6‑10‑1996.
2. Confronted with the above, learned counsel for the respondents has no objection, if it is declared that the decree against the appellants does not follow the judgment dated 6‑10‑1996; the application of the appellants for leave to appear and defend shall be deemed pending and the Tribunal shall decide the same afresh after hearing the parties.
3. In the light of above, the decree dated 6‑10‑1996 against the present appellants is set aside, with the observation that their leave application shall be deemed pending and shall be decided by the learned Banking Court within a period of two months, after hearing the parties. It may further be added that decree against rest of the defendants, as it has not been challenged, shall remain intact. Disposed of. S.A.K./N‑282/L Appeal disposed of.