1992 PLP 1077 (CLC)
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑‑Plaintiffs Versus Messrs MARRI COTTON GINNING AND PRESSING FACTORY
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1077 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Haziqul Khairi, J |
| Parties | NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑‑Plaintiffs Versus Messrs MARRI COTTON GINNING AND PRESSING FACTORY |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1077 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1077 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Haziqul Khairi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1077 (CLC) (NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑‑Plaintiffs Versus Messrs MARRI COTTON GINNING AND PRESSING FACTORY). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Date of hearing: 21st November, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑OXXXVII, R.2(2) & OXXXIV, R.4‑‑‑Summary procedure upon negotiable instrument‑‑‑Defendant after service of summons failing to file application for leave to defend‑‑‑Preliminary decree under OXXXIV, R.4, C.P.C. in circumstance, was passed against defendant. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ‑‑‑‑OXXXIV, R.4‑‑‑Negotiable instrument‑‑‑Summary procedure upon negotiable instrument‑‑‑Defendant after service of summons failing to file application for leave to defend‑‑‑Preliminary decree under OXXXIV, R.4, C.P.C. in circumstances, was passed against defendant. Qazi Sajid for Plaintiffs. Respondent (absent).'
Judgment & Decree
This is a suit for recovery of Rs.18,20,611 filed by M/s. National Bank of Pakistan against M/s. Marri Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory and two others. As per averment made in the plaint, the defendant No.1 is a Partnership Firm and defendants Nos.2 and 3 are its Partners. Defendant No.1 had been operating an account in its name at the Plaintiff's Branch at Tando Adam District Sanghar. The said defendant No.1 applied for loan limit of Rs.11,00,000 under the Small Loan I.D.A. Scheme, which was granted by the plaintiff on 10‑4‑1983. In consideration of loan granted by the plaintiff to the defendant No.!, a demand Promissory Note was executed by it in favour of the plaintiff. On the same date, defendants Nos.2 & 3 executed Letter of Guarantee for repayment of the said loan. Besides defendant No.1 executed D.P. Delivery letter and Letter of Authority in favour of the plaintiff Bank. As further security for repayment of loan, the defendants Nos.2 and 3 executed a Registered Mortgage of Properties bearing Nos. R.S. No.80, 81, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 117, 119, 112, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 157, 183 measuring 132‑21 acres of land situated in Deh 63 Jamrao, Taluka Sinjhoro District Sanghar, and other properties bearing R.S. No.99/4‑100/3, measuring 5.22 acres of Sikni land, situated in Deh Marri, Taluka Tando Adam, District Sanghar and also handed over all the original Title Deeds in respect thereto to the plaintiff. Subsequently, the defendants executed Revival Letter in Form I and II on 9‑4‑1986, admitting and acknowledging their liabilities. A balance confirmation slip was also executed by the defendants on 31‑12‑1988. A total sum of Rs.18,20,611 was due and payable by the defendants jointly and severally to the plaintiff as on 31‑10‑1990. Despite repeated requests made by plaintiff on the defendants, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the due amount of the plaintiff and hence the suit. The plaintiff prays as under: (a) The decree for Rs.18,20,616 may kindly be passed against the defendants jointly and severally. (b) Interest at the rate of 14% PA. with quarterly rests may kindly be granted on the decretal amount from the date of institution of this suit till the realization of decretal amount. (c) In case of default of payment of decretal amount, the mortgage properties mentioned in paras 10 to 11 to be sold out for the purpose of satisfaction of decretal amount. (d) That in case proceeds of sale are found insufficient for the amount under decree then the liability be reserved to the plaintiff to apply for a decree under Order 34, Rule 4, C.P.C. (e) All future costs, expenses and charges for insurance premium and godown charges ordered to be paid by the defendant from the date of filing of this suit till the realization of amount. (f) All costs be saddled on defendant. (g) Any other relief which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper be granted. The defendants have been duly served with the summons of the Court but they have failed to file any application for leave to defend of the suit. I accordingly pass a preliminary decree against the defendants under the provisions of Order 34, Rule 4, C.P.C. with interest and costs. K.B.A./N‑391/K Preliminary decree passed,