2003 PLP 204 (CLD)
UMAR HAYAT‑‑‑Appellant Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN‑ ‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 204 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Hamid Farooq and Parvez Ahmad, JJ |
| Parties | UMAR HAYAT‑‑‑Appellant Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN‑ ‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 204 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 204 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Hamid Farooq and Parvez Ahmad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 204 (CLD) (UMAR HAYAT‑‑‑Appellant Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN‑ ‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Shahid Saeed for Appellant.
- Nasir Mahmood for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advance, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 15 & 21‑‑‑Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), S.6(2)‑‑‑Suit for recovery of loan amount‑‑‑Legal and factual pleas raised by defendant to reply to show‑cause notice issued to him under S.6(2) of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 were rejected and suit was decreed with mark‑up and costs‑‑‑High Court with consent of parties allowed appeal, set aside judgment/decree and remanded case to Banking Court for its decision afresh within specified time after treating reply to show‑cause notice filed by defendant before the then Banking Tribunal as application for leave to defend suit after hearing the parties.
Judgment & Decree
Although the aforenoted C.M. Is fixed for today, yet at the request of the learned counsel for both the parties, the main appeal as well as C.M. No. 2‑C of 2001, are taken up. C.M. stands disposed of. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. Present first appeal, filed by the appellant/judgment‑debtor, proceeds against the judgment and decree, dated 24‑5‑2001, whereby the learned Judge Banking Court, Faisalabad, passed a decree for the recovery of Rs.3,14, 634, with mark‑up at the rate of 13, 50 per annum, commencing from 31‑12‑2000, till the full and final realization of the decretal amount, in favour of the respondent‑Bank and against the appellant, with costs.
2. Briefly stated the facts, necessary for the decision of the present appeal, are that the respondent‑bank filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.7,21,928, as on 31‑5‑1993, against the appellant, before the then Banking Tribunal (since defunct), who issued show‑cause notice to the appellant, as required under section 6(2) of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 (since repealed), wherein the appellant raised certain legal and factual objections. However, the learned Banking Tribunal, after hearing the parties and upon the rejection of the plea taken up by the appellant, passed a decree for the recovery of Rs.3,14, 634 with mark‑up and costs, as noted above, vide judgment and decree, dated 24‑5‑2001, hence, the present appeal.
3. After arguing the matter at some length, the learned counsel for the respondent‑bank has submitted that he has no objection, in case the suit is remanded to the learned Banking Court, after setting aside the impugned judgment and decree for its decision afresh. Learned counsel for the appellant has readily agreed to this course of action.
4. In view of the consensus, arrived at between the learned counsel of the parties, as noted above, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree, dated 24‑5‑2001, is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. The result would be that the suit, filed by the respondent‑bank, titled "A.D.B.P. v. Umer Hayat", shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Banking Court‑II, Faisalabad, who shall decide the same after treating the reply to the show‑cause notice, filed by the appellant before the then Banking Tribunal, as application for leave to defend the suit, after hearing the parties and, of course, in accordance with law within a period of two months from the receipt of this order, even if he has to undertake day -to‑day proceedings. Office is directed to immediately transmit the record to the learned Banking Court. S.A.K./U‑33/L Order accordingly.