2005 PLP 1606 (CLD)
Messrs RASOOLAN BIBI and 5 others — Appellants Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Joint Director — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1606 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Messrs RASOOLAN BIBI and 5 others — Appellants Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Joint Director — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1606 (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 1606 (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 1606 (CLD) (Messrs RASOOLAN BIBI and 5 others — Appellants Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Joint Director — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Haider Ali Shah for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9, 10, 22 & 24
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 132(c)
Leave to appear and defend suit
Appellants had contended that suit filed by Bank was barred by time as period of limitation was three years, but suit had not been filed before expiry of said period
Bank had referred to Art. 132(c) of Limitation Act, 1908 and had submitted that where immovable property was charged by way of deposit of title documents with the object to enforce the payment of money, the limitation was 12 years and that Bank had sanctioned the loan of appellant on deposit of Pass Book
Said Pass Book was not the title document of the nature envisaged in Art. 132 of Limitation Act, 1908 to attract the provision
Appellants having raised a substantial question of law and fact i.e. limitation, for determination of that, they were entitled to grant of leave
Impugned judgment and decree, were set aside and leave to appear and defend suit was granted and appellants were allowed to file written statement within specified period and case was remanded to Banking Court for deciding same, in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
The respondent-Bank brought a suit for recovery of Rs.4,97,066 against the appellant on account of agricultural loan, granted to the appellant in the year, 2000. The appellant filed an application for leave to defend the suit, inter alia, raising plea of limitation. This application has been rejected and by refusing said application, the suit to the tune of Rs.4,97,066 has been decreed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the suit was admittedly barred by time. Even by following the provisions of section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, the period of limitation was at the best three years, but the suit had not been filed before the expiry of said period.
3. When confronted with the above, the learned counsel for the respondent has referred to Article 132(c) of Limitation Act and submits that where immovable property is charged by way of the deposit of title documents with the object to enforce the payment of money the limitation is 12 years. He further submits that respondent-Bank had sanctioned the loan of the appellant on the deposit of Agricultural Pass Book.
4. We have heard the counsel for the parties and find that the Pass Book are not the title documents of the nature envisaged in Article 132 so as to attract the said provision. As such we find that the appellant had raised a substantial question of law and fact i.e. limitation, therefore, for the determination of this, was entitled to the grant of leave. So this, appeal is accepted and by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree, we grant leave to appear and defend the suit and allow the appellant to file written statement within a period of one month; the case is remanded to the Banking Court to re-decide the same in accordance with law. No order as to costs. H.B.T./R-4/L Appeal accepted.