2007 PLP 1179 (CLD)
PIONEER STEEL MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED — Appellant Versus UNION BANK LIMITED — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1179 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | PIONEER STEEL MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED — Appellant Versus UNION BANK LIMITED — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institution (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1179 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Financial Institution (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1179 (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: 2007 PLP 1179 (CLD) (PIONEER STEEL MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED — Appellant Versus UNION BANK LIMITED — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khawaja Amar Farooq for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.9. 10 & 22
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11
Suit for rendition of accounts
Leave to appear and defend suit
Application for leave to appear and defend suit was allowed, issues were framed
Trial. Court, without recording evidence, vide impugned order, rejected plaint under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. holding that cause of action, did not subsist against the Bank
Plaint had been rejected on account of lack of cause of action, which, on the basis of contents of the plaint and settled principles regarding the rejection of plaint was not a valid order
Question of maintainability of suit for rendition of accounts filed by appellant, was neither raised by Bank before Banking/Trial Court nor same was ground for the rejection of the plaint
Issue about maintainability of the suit had already been framed
Contents of plaint had disclosed a cause of action
Impugned order was set aside and case was remanded to Banking Court for fresh decision
Banking Court, while deciding question of maintainability of suit would take into account the respective pleas of the parties and dispose of the matter in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
Admittedly, there is a relationship of Banking Company and Customer inter se the parties. On account of the finance obtained by the appellant from the respondent-Bank, a dispute arose between them, constraining the appellant to file a suit for rendition of accounts. The respondent moved an application for leave to appear and defend the suit, which was allowed, where-after issues were framed, but without recording the evidence, the learned trial Court through the impugned order dated 27-9-2003, rejected the plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., holding that the cause of action does not subsist against the respondent.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant states that since the leave was granted and issues were framed, the controversy could only be resolved after the parties were given an opportunity to prove or disprove their case; this has not been done by the learned trial Court; on reading the contents of the plaint, it discloses a cause of action.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment reported as M/s. Friend Engineering, Corporation v. Government of Punjab and 4 others 1991 SCMR 2324, to argue that where there is a contractual obligation, the suit for rendition of account is not maintainable,
4. Heard. The above aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order, rather the plaint has been rejected on account of the lack of cause of action, which on the basis of the contents of plaint and the settled principles regarding the rejection of plaint, is not a valid order. As regards the question of maintainability now raised, it is neither raised by the respondent before the Banking Court, nor this is the ground for the rejection of the plaint. We are told that an issue about the maintainability of the suit has already been framed, thus, we expect that while deciding the said issue, the Court below will take into account the respective pleas of the parties and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Banking Court for decision afresh. The appeal is accordingly allowed. H.B.T./P-19/L Order accordingly.