1982 PLP 1433 (CLC)
MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.‑ Petitioner. Versus Sh. IJAZ NISAR AND 2 OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 1433 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore. |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan. J |
| Parties | MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.‑ Petitioner. Versus Sh. IJAZ NISAR AND 2 OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 1433 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 1433 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore. bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan. J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 1433 (CLC) (MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.‑ Petitioner. Versus Sh. IJAZ NISAR AND 2 OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Waqar Hussain Naqvi for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing : 12th Dccember, 1981.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ O. XXXVII, r. 3 (2) read with Banking Companies (Reco very of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979) and Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑Recovery of loans‑Leave to defend suit‑Leave granted subject to condition of deposit of entire suit amount being made within one month‑Such order within jurisdic tion and discretion of Court‑Held, case not fit for interference in writ jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ O. XXXVII, r. 3 (2) read with Banking Companies (Reco very of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979) and Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑Recovery of loans‑Leave to defend suit‑Leave granted subject to condition of deposit of entire suit amount being made within one month‑Such order within jurisdic tion and discretion of Court‑Held, case not fit for interference in writ jurisdiction. Syed Waqar Hussain Naqvi for Petitioners. Date of hearing : 12th Dccember, 1981. The Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan has filed a civil suit for the recovery of Rs.75,31,237.40 against the petitioner and M/s. Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. The principal debtor is M/s. Sutlej Cotton Mills Limi ted while the position of the petitioner is that of a guarantor, The suit is pending before a Special Court established under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance. 1979. The Special Court is following the procedure laid down in Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The petitioner applied before the Special Court for leave to defend the suit. The leave was granted subject to the condition that the petitioner should deposit into the Court the entire suit amount within one month. A Through this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the imposition of the said condition. It is not disputed that under rule 3 (2) of Order XXXVII the Special Court could while, granting leave to defend the suit, impose the impugned condition. It is thus not a case where the order pf the Special Court suffers from any error of jurisdiction. The grievance of the petitioner is that it is a banking institution and it cannot allow such a large amount as is involved in this suit to be tied up in an unproductive deposit and so long as the amount remains in the Court it will not bring any return for the bank. It is further stated that in case the suit is ulti mately decreed it will not be difficult for the Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan to affect the recovery of the suit amount.
3. I do not think it is a fit case for interference in writ jurisdiction by this Court particularly when the order made by the learned Special, Court is with jurisdiction and well within its discretion. The petitioner, if so advised, can move the Special Court to place the amount in a bank where it earns interest during the pendency of the suit. With these observations this writ petition is dismissed in limine. M.Y.H. Petition dismissed .