2002 PLP 623 (CLD)
Mirza SHAHID BRIG‑‑‑Appellant Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and
| Citation | 2002 PLP 623 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ |
| Parties | Mirza SHAHID BRIG‑‑‑Appellant Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XVI of 2001)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 623 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XVI of 2001)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 623 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 623 (CLD) (Mirza SHAHID BRIG‑‑‑Appellant Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Abdul Sattar Ijaz for Appellant.
- Sh. Jamshed Ahmad for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 19 & 22‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.55 & O.XXI R37‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Execution of decree‑‑‑Prayer in execution petition for arrest of appellant with the object of satisfying the decree was accepted by the Banking Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Decree obtained by Bank was to be satisfied through sale of properties mentioned in Farad Taleeqa‑‑‑Banking Court should have, in the first instance, attempted to sell such properties‑‑‑Where sale proceeds were not sufficient to satisfy the decree or judgment debtor impeded the sale or committed other prejudicial acts, then it would have been proper to proceed against the judgment‑debtors personally‑‑‑High Court modified the impugned order and held that there was no justification for issuing warrants of arrest against the appellant‑‑‑Appeal was partially allowed in such terms.
Judgment & Decree
E.F.A. No.82 of 2001, decided on 22nd January, 2002. ‑‑‑‑Ss. 19 & 22‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.55 & O.XXI R37‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Execution of decree‑‑‑Prayer in execution petition for arrest of appellant with the object of satisfying the decree was accepted by the Banking Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Decree obtained by Bank was to be satisfied through sale of properties mentioned in Farad Taleeqa‑‑‑Banking Court should have, in the first instance, attempted to sell such properties‑‑‑Where sale proceeds were not sufficient to satisfy the decree or judgment debtor impeded the sale or committed other prejudicial acts, then it would have been proper to proceed against the judgment‑debtors personally‑‑‑High Court modified the impugned order and held that there was no justification for issuing warrants of arrest against the appellant‑‑‑Appeal was partially allowed in such terms. Mian Abdul Sattar Ijaz for Appellant. Sh. Jamshed Ahmad for Respondents. This execution first appeal impugns the order, dated 31‑10‑2001, passed by the learned Banking Court No.5, at Lahore. Through an execution petition, filed by the respondent decree‑holder, it was prayed that the appellant Mirza Shahid Baig be arrested with the object of satisfying the decree obtained by the respondent‑Bank. The learned Banking Court has, by means of a very cursory order, dated 31‑10‑2001, directed, among other things, that the appellant Mirza Shahid Baig be arrested.
2. We have heard both the learned counsel and, in particular, the learned counsel of the Judgment‑debtor Bank. It is evident that the decree obtained by the respondent‑Bank is to be satisfied through sale of the properties mentioned in the Farad Taleeqa. The Banking Court should, in the first instance, attempt to sell the said properties and only in the event the sale proceeds are not sufficient to satisfy the decree, or the judgment‑debtor impedes the sale or commits other prejudicial acts that it would be proper to proceed against the judgment debtors personally. In this view of the matter, we would modify the impugned order and hold that there was no justification on 31‑10‑2001, for issuing warrants of arrest against the appellant Mirza Shahid Baig. This appeal is partially allowed in the above terms. S.A.K./S‑361/L Order accordingly.