2006 PLP 81 (CLD)
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN — Appellant Versus REHMANIA TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 81 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN — Appellant Versus REHMANIA TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive and 3 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 81 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 81 (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: 2006 PLP 81 (CLD) (INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN — Appellant Versus REHMANIA TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sardar Sami Hayat for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S.22
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss.5 & 29(2)
Application under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908
Limitation in such case was prescribed by Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 and not by Limitation Act, 1908, thus, provisions of S.5 thereof would not attract to such case
High Court dismissed appeal being time-barred.
Judgment & Decree
SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.
This appeal under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23-7-2003 whereby the suit filed by the appellant against the respondents was partially decreed. The said appeal on the face of it has been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed and is accompanied by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 seeking condonation of delay.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that he had no knowledge of the passing of the impugned judgment and decree, therefore, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period and the delay is for the reasons beyond the control of the appellant, hence, such delay is liable to be condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has not only controverted the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant but has also submitted that the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is not maintainable in view of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908. It is contended that the limitation for filing an appeal before this Court is provided under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 and not by the Limitation Act, 1908. Hence, the provisions of section 5 are not attracted in view of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908. In support of his contentions the learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgments reported as Allah Dino and another v. Muhammad Shah and others (2001 SCMR 286) and Abdul Rasheed and another v. Bank of Punjab through Branch Manager (2004 CLD 800).
4. The objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is well-founded. The limitation in the instant case is not prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1908 but by section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, hence, by virtue of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908, the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 are not attracted as held by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as by this Court as mentioned above. This appeal is barred by limitation and the delay in filing the same cannot be condoned. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed being time-barred. S.A.K./I-120/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.