2003 PLP 1506 (CLD)
ABDUL HAMEED — Appellant Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1506 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMEED — Appellant Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1506 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1506 (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: 2003 PLP 1506 (CLD) (ABDUL HAMEED — Appellant Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Farrukh Mehmood. Solehria for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S.22
Appeal against order of Executing Court, whereby appellant was ordered to be arrested in execution of decree
High Court while issuing pre-admission notice to Bank ordered that in the meanwhile appellant be not arrested
Appellant's counsel thereafter sought adjournment to obtain instructions from appellant as to time frame within which he would discharge total decretal debt-- Appellant did not provide such instructions to his counsel, who requested Court to hear appeal on merits-- High Court on being satisfied that appellant was taking undue advantage of interim relief dismissed his appeal.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
This appeal impugns the order dated 3-6-2002 passed by the learned Banking Court No.II, Gujranwala, whereby the appellant Abdul Hameed was ordered to be arrested in execution of a decree dated 29-11-2001 obtained by the respondent-Bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,92,
481. On the first date of hearing i.e. 4-7-2002, pre-admission notice was issued to the respondent-Bank and in the meanwhile, it was ordered that the appellant should not be arrested in execution of the above-referred decree. The appellant availed the benefit of the interim relief allowed to him. The case was next fixed for hearing on 23-10-2002 on which date learned counsel for the appellant had sought time to obtain instructions from the appellant as to the time frame within which the appellant would discharge the total decretal debt.
2. Today learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the appellant has not provided any time-frame to him for discharge of his liability under the decree dated 29-11-2001. Learned counsel has further stated that the appellant has not made any contact with learned counsel despite best efforts made by the latter.
3. In the above circumstances, we are satisfied that the appellant is taking undue advantage of the interim relief allowed to him on 4-7-2002. Furthermore, we note from the order dated 23-10-2002, referred to above, that the only question before us was the time-frame within which the appellant was to discharge the decretal debt. Today learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the absence of any time-frame and the absence of instructions from the appellant, he be allowed to argue this appeal on merits. This, we are afraid, cannot be allowed keeping in view the order dated 23-10-2002. As a consequence; this appeal is dismissed. S.A.K/A-697/L Appeal dismissed