2017 PLP 246 (CLD)
MUHAMMAD AYUB — Petitioner Versus JUDGE BANKING COURT GUJRANWALA and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 246 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AYUB — Petitioner Versus JUDGE BANKING COURT GUJRANWALA and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 246 (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 2017 PLP 246 (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: 2017 PLP 246 (CLD) (MUHAMMAD AYUB — Petitioner Versus JUDGE BANKING COURT GUJRANWALA and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tahir Mehmood Mughal and Muhammad Aamir Qazi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 12, 10 & 19
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199
Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Scope
Suit for recovery was decreed ex parte against the petitioner and subsequently the petitioner filed an application to set aside said ex parte decree
Banking Court, after filing of said application by the petitioner, in the impugned order, directed the court auctioneer to auction the mortgaged property and directed the petitioner for filing reply
Impugned order was not a final or interim order and merely directed filing of reply and auction of property to the court auctioneer and application of the petitioner to set aside ex parte decree was still pending, therefore, no interference could be made in the said matter
Constitutional petition, being not maintainable was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Through this constitutional petition, the Petitioner has called in question interim order dated 31.10.2016 passed by Respondent No.1 Judge Banking Court-I, Gujranwala, whereby Court Auctioneer was directed to conduct auction proceedings accordingly.
2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Respondent No.2, instituted a suit on 06.08.2013 for recovery of Rs.26,18,949/- along with costs and costs of funds against the Petitioner and the Respondents Nos.3 to
6. Respondent No.5/defendant No.3 filed application for leave to defend and the Respondent No.2/Plaintiff Bank also filed reply thereto. However, the Petitioner, Respondents Nos.3, 4 and 6/defendants Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 neither appeared nor filed any application for leave to defend the suit under section 10 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (F.I.O., 2001), therefore, ex parte proceedings were initiated against them. The said suit was decreed by the Banking Court on 06.06.2016 against the Petitioner jointly and severally with costs and costs of funds as per section 3 of the F.I.O., 2001. Thereafter, the petitioner, filed an application for setting aside of ex parte Judgment and Decree on 04.10.2016 in which the Judge directed the Court Auctioneer vide order dated 31.10.2016 to auction the mortgaged property accordingly and adjourned the case to 21.12.2016. The Petitioner feeling aggrieved of the said order has filed this petition.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. The impugned order has been examined by us and we have noticed that in the impugned order the Banking Court has not passed any final or interim order because in this order, the Banking Court, has only directed for the reply, and for the auction of the property to the Court Auctioneer. Hence, the application of the petitioner is still pending in which reply is yet to be filed. Since, in the impugned order, the Banking Court has not decided the lis in hand, therefore, we do not interfere in the matter and direct the Banking Court to decide the application pending before it within two weeks from the receipt of copy of this order. Writ petition being not maintainable is dismissed. KMZ/M-196/L Petition dismissed.