2005 PLP 1749 (CLD)
CHIC TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LIMITTED through Chief Executive — Appellant Versus ALLIED BANK LIMITED — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1749 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | CHIC TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LIMITTED through Chief Executive — Appellant Versus ALLIED BANK LIMITED — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1749 (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 1749 (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 1749 (CLD) (CHIC TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LIMITTED through Chief Executive — Appellant Versus ALLIED BANK LIMITED — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abid Aziz Sheikh for Respondent:
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.9 & 22
Suit having been dismissed for non-prosecution, plaintiff filed application for restoration of suit, but said application was disallowed and plaintiff had filed appeal against the dismissal order
Date on which suit was dismissed being not the date of hearing, suit could not have been dismissed
Possibility of noting a wrong date as claimed by plaintiff could not be ruled out
If the Court wanted to non-suit: plaintiff; it should have made some inquiry and at least plaintiff or clerk of counsel of plaintiff who was informed about the date, should have been examined
Negligence though being on the part of plaintiff, suit was restored with costs
Suit would be deemed pending for retrial at the stage when it was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
The appellant brought a suit: for recovery against the respondent, in which the respondent filed an application for leave to appear and defend. The said application was fixed for hearing on 31-3-1998, and on the said date the representative of the plaintiff appeared before the Court and the case was adjourned to 28-5-1998. However, he erroneously informed the date as 28-6-1998 to the counsel and it was, therefore, wrongly incorporated in the record of the lawyer. Therefore, as none appeared on behalf of the appellant before the trial Court on the said date, the suit was dismissed. The appellant moved an application for restoration of the suit, which too has been disallowed vide order- dated 12-2-1999, hence this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends, that the date was erroneously noted and this being a question of fact, if at all the application was to be disallowed the Court had to do so after holding a proper inquiry and recording evidence, which has not been done in the case; besides this, the date 28-5-1998 was not the date of hearing fixed in the case, because it was in the leave application, and at the most the Court could have granted ex parte leave to the respondent.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and found both the contentions well-founded and having force. The date 28-5-1998 was not the date of hearing. Resultantly the suit could not have been dismissed. Moreover, the possibility of noting a wrong date could not be ruled out, and, if the Court wanted to non-suit the appellant, in that eventuality some inquiry should have been held and, at least, the appellant or the clerk of the counsel, to whom the date was informed, should have been examined. Yet, we find that there was negligence on the part: of the appellant. Therefore, while imposing costs of Rs.2,500, the suit is restored and it shall be deemed pending for retrial at the stage where it was dismissed. H.B.T./ C-16 /L Order accordingly.