2006 PLP 484 (CLD)
NAEEM-UD-DIN KHAN — Plaintiff Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN through President and 2 others — Defendants
| Citation | 2006 PLP 484 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NAEEM-UD-DIN KHAN — Plaintiff Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN through President and 2 others — Defendants |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 484 (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 2006 PLP 484 (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: 2006 PLP 484 (CLD) (NAEEM-UD-DIN KHAN — Plaintiff Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN through President and 2 others — Defendants). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 9
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, Rr.11 & 10
State Bank of Pakistan Circular No.29 dated 15-10-2002
Suit for recovery of loam was decreed and on execution the mortgaged property was auctioned
Judgment-debtor filed civil suit for damages or in the alternative for possession on the ground that the Bank had not settled the matter in terms of State Bank of Pakistan Circular No.29 dated 15-10-2002
Matter, apparently related to finance granted by the Bank in which the judgment-debtor was a guarantor and had also mortgaged his property
Section 9, Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 provided that where a customer or financial institution had committed default in fulfilment of obligation with regard to any finance, the financial institution or as the case may be, the customer might institute suit in Banking Court
'Customer' has been defined to be a surety or an indemnifier and 'obligation' includes warranties and mortgages
Judgment-debtor-(plaintiff), in the present case, being a customer and mutter being in relation to obligation, the jurisdiction of Banking Court in terms of S.9 of the Ordinance was attracted to the case
Forum for the suit for damages etc., filed by the judgment-debtor (plaintiff) being the Banking Court, the plaint for the said suit could not be rejected but it could be returned to the judgment-debtor (plaintiff) for presentation before the proper Court
High Court, in circumstances, treated the application of the Bank for rejection of plaint of the plaintiff (judgment-debtor) as one to be under O. VII, R.10. C.P.C. and allowed the same
Plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
GULZAR AHMED, J.
This is an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. filed by defendants 1 and 2 seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit pertains to the banking 'matter in which the Banking Court has exclusive jurisdiction in terms of section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. No counter-affidavit to this application has been filed. The record shows that the plaintiff counsel appeared on 3-6-2004 and on 6-12-2004 and since then on 24-1-2005, 22-2-2005, 5-5-2005, 28-9-2005, 15-1 1-2005 and 8-12-2005 remained absent and even today is called absent. The perusal of the plaint shows that plaintiff was a guarantor in respect of loan obtained by his wife namely Mst. Rehana Khan, proprietor of Lucky Trading Company from the defendant No. 1 and on default in payment of the loan the bank had filed suit in the Banking Court which was decreed and subsequently an execution application was filed in which the mortgaged property was auctioned. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff for damages or in the alternative for possession on the ground that the bank has not settled the matter in terms of the State Bank of Pakistan Circular No.29 dated 15-10-2002. Apparently the matter relates to finance granted by the bank in which the plaintiff was a guarantor and has also mortgaged his property. Section 9 of the Ordinance 2001 provides that where a customer or financial institution commits default in fulfilment of obligation with regard to any finance, the financial institution or as the case may be, the customer may institute suit in the Banking Court. The customer has been defined to be a surety or an indemnifier- and obligation includes warranties And mortgages. A The plaintiff being a customer and the matter being in relation to obligation, the jurisdiction of Banking Courts in terms of section 9 of the Ordinance is attracted to the case in hand. As it has been found that forum for the suit is the Banking Court therefore, the plaint cannot be rejected but it can be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the proper Court. Accordingly the application is treated one to be under Order VII, rule 10, C.P.C. and is allowed. The plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the proper Court. M.B.A./N-5/K???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.