2005 PLP 1655 (CLD)
ZAFAR IQBAL KHAN — Appellant Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED through Manager and duly Authorized Attorney and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1655 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ZAFAR IQBAL KHAN — Appellant Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED through Manager and duly Authorized Attorney and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1655 (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 2005 PLP 1655 (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 1655 (CLD) (ZAFAR IQBAL KHAN — Appellant Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED through Manager and duly Authorized Attorney and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9, 19 & 22
Suit for recovery of 'loan
Suit by Bank was decreed and in satisfaction of decree, three mortgaged flats were directed to be put to auction
Appellant and respondents filed objections that they had already purchased flats being unaware that those were under lien of the Bank
Objection had been dismissed and Court, without giving any reason had directed to sell one of the flats through auction which belonged to the appellant
Appellant had stated that such order was discriminatory and would cause prejudice to rights of appellant who was at par with other objectors
No reason was shown on basis of which flat of appellant could be directed to be put to auction first
Court should have directed the objectors, either to deposit decretal amount proportionately to save their property or properties belonging to all of them should have been put to auction simultaneously
High Court accepting appeal set aside impugned order and remanded matter to Banking Court for passing a fresh order with regard to execution of decree.
Judgment & Decree
Respondent No.1 Bank filed a suit for recovery against respondents Nos.2 and 3 which was decreed to the tune of Rs.2,44,
599. In satisfaction of the decree, three mortgaged flats were directed to be, put to auction. The present appellant and respondents Nos.4, 5 and 6 filed objections that they had already purchased the flats being unaware that those are under the lien of the Bank. These objections have been dismissed through the impugned order, but the learned Appellate Court without any reason has directed first to sell Flat No.9 through auction which belongs to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant states such order is discriminatory and would cause serious prejudice to the rights of the appellant, who is at par with the other objectors, but his property has been directed to be sold first and if the decree is satisfied, the other objector would go free.
2. Notice was issued to the respondents, but except the representative of the Bank none is present. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we find that there was no reason on the basis of which the flat of the appellant could be directed to be put to auction first, in fact, the Court should have directed the three objectors, either to deposit the decretal amount proportionately to save their property or the properties belonging to all of them should have put to auction simultaneously.
3. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Banking Court for passing a fresh order with regard to the execution of the decree. H.B.T./Z- 169/L Appeal accepted.