2005 PLP 186 (CLD)
Mst. IRSHAD YAMIN — Appellant Versus CITI BANK N.A. and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 186 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. IRSHAD YAMIN — Appellant Versus CITI BANK N.A. and 2 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 186 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 186 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi 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 186 (CLD) (Mst. IRSHAD YAMIN — Appellant Versus CITI BANK N.A. and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent No. 1.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.19(7) & 22(2)
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, R.58 & O.XLI, R.5
Enough evidence in the shape of receipts had been filed before the Banking Court to show the ownership of attached movable property
Prima facie, such property belonged to the appellant and Banking Court did not have any power or lien to take action against such property
High Court directed that Banking Court shall not take further action regarding such property till the next date of hearing.
Judgment & Decree
Ss.19(7) & 22(2)
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, R.58 & O.XLI, R.5
Enough evidence in the shape of receipts had been filed before the Banking Court to show the ownership of attached movable property
Prima facie, such property belonged to the appellant and Banking Court did not have any power or lien to take action against such property
High Court directed that Banking Court shall not take further action regarding such property till the next date of hearing. Salim Salam Ansari for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent No.
1. Learned counsel says that the appellant's entire case is regarding her ownership of the attached moveable property; which is available as her residence. Per learned counsel enough evidence in. the shape of receipts etc. had been filed before the learned Banking Court to show prima facie the appellant's ownership of said property and consequently the same should have been investigated instead of having been rejected in limine as has been done by the learned Banking Court. He therefore, pays that till the next date no action may be taken against the property in question. From the perusal of receipts, attached to this application filed before the learned Banking Court, it appears that indeed prima facie, the moveable property belonged to the appellant. The Banking Court does not have any power or lien to take action against such property. In the circumstances, we would direct that the learned Banking Court shall not take further action regarding such property till the next date of hearing. Repeat notice. Adjourned to a date in office. M.B.A./I-19/K Order accordingly.