2005 PLP 1001 (CLD)
Pirzada AHSAN-UD-DIN — Appellant Versus BANK OF PUNJAB and 6 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1001 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Pirzada AHSAN-UD-DIN — Appellant Versus BANK OF PUNJAB and 6 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1001 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1001 (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: 2005 PLP 1001 (CLD) (Pirzada AHSAN-UD-DIN — Appellant Versus BANK OF PUNJAB and 6 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Aqeel Malik for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 18(6)
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, R.58-- Execution of decree
Objection application, dismissal of
Non -reading of evidence-- Effect
Banking Court decided application of objector without application of mind, as the documents attached by decree-holder bank in the suit as well as in the reply of objection application were not mentioned by Banking Court in its order
Courts were bound to decide the cases after application of independent mind
Order passed by Banking Court not containing any such reason, the same was set aside-- Application was remanded to Banking Court for decision afresh-- Appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan PLD 1970 SC 173 rel. Iftikhar Ullah Malik for Appellant. Muhammad Aqeel Malik for Respondents. The brief facts out of which the present appeal arises are that the respondent‑Bank filed a suit against respondents Nos.2 to 7 before the Banking Court No.2 Lahore which was decreed vide judgment: and decree dated 24‑5‑1999. The respondent‑Bank filed execution petition before the Executing Court. The appellant filed objection petition before the Banking Court. Learned Banking Court dismissed the objection petition of the appellant vide order dated 19‑5‑2000. The appellant being aggrieved filed this appeal.
2. Learned counsel of the appellant submits that Banking Court dismissed the objection petition without application of mind and without recording evidence. Learned counsel of the respondent‑Bank submits that Banking Court passed the impugned order after applying its independent mind after perusing the documents attached with the suit and with reply to leave application, filed by the respondent‑Bank before the Banking Court. He further submits that it is not necessary that Banking Court should decide the application of the petitioner after recording evidence as the appellant has not filed objection petition under Order XXI, Rule 58, C.P.C. read with section 18(6) of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 and the appellant has filed application under section 47, C.P.C.
3. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
4. The impugned order reveals that the Banking Court decided the application of the appellant without application of mind as the documents attached by the respondent‑Bank in the suit as well as in the reply of the application of the appellant have not been mentioned by the Banking Court in the impugned order. It is settled principle of law that Courts are bound to decide the cases after application of independent mind as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan PLD 1970 SC
173. The impugned order does not contain any reason as mentioned above, therefore, the same is set aside. Meaning thereby the application filed by the appellant shall be deemed to be pending adjudication before the Banking Court. The parties are directed to appear before the Banking Court No. 1, Lahore on 10‑3‑2004 who is directed to decide the application of the appellant in accordance with law positively within two months. The parties and their counsel are directed to cooperate with the learned Banking Court so that the matter may be decided within the prescribed period. In case any party fails to cooperate with the learned Banking Court then the Court shall invoke penal provisions against that party. With these observations the appeal is disposed of. M.H./A‑49/L Case remanded.