2005 PLP 1019 (CLD)
MUNEER FLOUR MILLS (PRIVATE) LIMITED and 4 others- — Appellants Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Chief Manager and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1019 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUNEER FLOUR MILLS (PRIVATE) LIMITED and 4 others- — Appellants Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Chief Manager and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), (a) Civi1 Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1019 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), (a) Civi1 Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1019 (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 1019 (CLD) (MUNEER FLOUR MILLS (PRIVATE) LIMITED and 4 others- — Appellants Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Chief Manager and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kamran Babar for Respondent No. 1.
Headnotes / Summary
O. XVII, R.5
Adjournment of case for a particular purpose by Reader of the Court, when Presiding Officer was on leave-- Validity
Case for a particular purpose could either be fixed by Court itself or by any duty Judge
Reorder, under C.P.C., or Special Law, had no power to adjourn case for any particular purpose.
S. 12
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XVII, R.5
Ex parte decree, setting aside of
Adjournment of case by Reader of the Court on a date, when Presiding Officer was on leave and application was fixed for hearing
Dismissal of application by Court on such adjourned date
Banking Court dismissed application seeking restoration of earlier application
Validity-- Reader under C.P.C., or Special Law had no power to adjourn case for any particular purpose
Case for a particular purpose could either be fixed by Court itself or by any duty Judge
Such adjourned date being not a date of hearing of application under S.12 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, same could not be dismissed for non prosecution
High Court accepted appeal, set aside impugned order, allowed application for restoration of application under S.12 resultantly application under S.12 would be deemed pending before Banking Court for decision.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 12‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XVII, R.5‑‑‑Ex parte decree, setting aside of‑‑‑Adjournment of case by Reader of the Court on a date, when Presiding Officer was on leave and application was fixed for hearing‑‑‑Dismissal of application by Court on such adjourned date‑‑‑Banking Court dismissed application seeking restoration of earlier application‑-‑Validity‑‑ Reader under C.P.C., or Special Law had no power to adjourn case for any particular purpose‑‑‑Case for a particular purpose could either be fixed by Court itself or by any duty Judge‑‑‑Such adjourned date being not a date of hearing of application under S.12 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, same could not be dismissed for non prosecution‑‑‑High Court accepted appeal, set aside impugned order, allowed application for restoration of application under S.12 resultantly application under S.12 would be deemed pending before Banking Court for decision. Mujtaba Jamal for Appellants. Kamran Babar for Respondent No.
1. Shoaib Zafar for the I.D.B.P. Respondent No. 1, brought a suit for recovery, against the appellants before the learned Banking Court at Lahore, which was ex parte decreed on 4‑12‑2001; the appellants moved an application under section 12 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, for setting aside of the ex parte decree, which was fixed for hearing on 31‑7‑2003. However, on that date, the learned Judge was on leave and the Reader of the Court, adjourned the matter for 6‑9‑2003, but erroneously, on this day, the date of the order mentioned is 31‑7‑2003, and as none represented the appellants, therefore, the learned Banking Court was pleased to dismiss their application under section
12. However, the appellants moved an application for the restoration of this application, which has been dismissed through the impugned order.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that 6‑9‑2003, was not the date of hearing in the matter, because the case from 31‑7‑2003 to 6‑9‑2003, was not adjourned by the Court, rather the Court was on leave and under the law, the, Reader could not fix the matter for hearing on 6‑9‑2003.
3. Heard. The above plea is absolutely correct, because the case for a particular proceeding could either be fixed by the Court itself or any Duty Judge and the Reader under the C.P.C. or the Special Law, has no power to adjourn the case for any particular purpose. Therefore, 6‑9‑2003, was not a date of hearing upon the application under section 12, which could not be dismissed for non‑prosecution. Resultantly by allowing this appeal, the impugned order is set aside; the application of the appellants for restoration of the application under section 12 is allowed and the application under section 12 shall be deemed pending, which shall be decided by the learned Banking Court in accordance with law. S.A.K./M‑433/L Appeal accepted.