2009 PLP 1656 (CLD)
UNION BANK LTD. through Attorney — Appellant Versus Messrs B.R.R. INTERNATIONAL MODARABA and 8 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 1656 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | UNION BANK LTD. through Attorney — Appellant Versus Messrs B.R.R. INTERNATIONAL MODARABA and 8 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 1656 (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 2009 PLP 1656 (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: 2009 PLP 1656 (CLD) (UNION BANK LTD. through Attorney — Appellant Versus Messrs B.R.R. INTERNATIONAL MODARABA and 8 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Hameed Chohan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.9, 10, 22 & 24
Application for leave to appear and defend suit
Lease finance from Modaraba Company
Guarantee was issued by the Bank assuring that in case of default by debtors, it would discharge the liability
Default having been committed by debtors, suit was filed against them as also the Bank/guarantor--Application for leave to appear and defend, by the Bank was dismissed by the Trial Court and suit was decreed against all the debtors including the Bank
Guarantee issued by the Bank had expired and suit as claimed was time-barred
Counsel for the Modarba Company had submitted that as per the provision of S.24 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, the suit could be instituted even after the expiry of limitation, when a sufficient cause was shown
Modarba Company, in its plaint had not mentioned the circumstances constituting the sufficient cause, besides that as per the provisions of O.VII, R6, C.P.C. ground of exemption of limitation had to be mentioned in the plaint
Question of limitation was considered to be a substantial question of fact and law, entitling the defendants/ debtors to the grant of leave
Impugned judgment and decree was set aside and case was remanded to the court below to frame appropriate issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and decide the case afresh.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
Respondents Nos.2 to 9 obtained a lease finance from respondent No.1 for which an agreement was executed between the appellant, respondent No.1 and respondents Nos.2 to
9. A bank guarantee was issued by the appellant assuring that in case of default by respondents Nos.2 to 9, it shall discharge the liability. The default was committed by respondents Nos.2 to 9, thus, a suit was filed against them as also the appellant. The appellant moved an application for leave to appear and defend which has been dismissed by the trial Court and the suit has been decreed to the tune of Rs.1,165,350 (suit amount) against all the defendants, hence this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the suit of respondent No.1 was barred by time besides, it was not maintainable under Ordinance, 2001.
3. Heard.
4. The present suit had been instituted by the respondent No.1 against the appellant and respondents Nos.2 to 9 on 3-10-2002, however, the guarantee issued by the appellant had expired on 30-11-1997. Under section 22 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 the period of three years for filing of the suits is persisted. In the instant case, the bank guarantee was executed on 16-8-1993 for almost four years had expired on 30-11-1997 as mentioned above, thus the suit as is claimed by the appellant's counsel was time barred.
5. Learned counsel submitted that as per the provisions of section 24 of the Financial Institution (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 the suit could be instituted even after the expiry of limitation, when a sufficient cause is shown. It may be pertinent to state here that the respondent No.1 in the plaint has not mentioned the circumstances constituting the sufficient cause, besides that as per the provisions of Order VII, Rule 6 ground of exemption of limitation has to be mentioned in the plaint, therefore, we consider the question of limitation being it to be a substantial question of fact and law, entitling the appellant to the grant of the leave; as regard the plea of maintainability is concerned, as the leave is being granted to the appellant, such question shall also be a part of the issue by the Banking Court.
6. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and. decree is get aside, the case is remanded to the Court below to frame appropriate issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and decide the case afresh. H.B.T./U-12/L Case remanded.