2002 PLP 1269 (CLD)
Rana MUHAMMAD SHAFI and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus M. JAVED ISBAL SIDDIQUI, JUDGE, BANKING COURT NO. 1, GUJRANWALA and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1269 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ |
| Parties | Rana MUHAMMAD SHAFI and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus M. JAVED ISBAL SIDDIQUI, JUDGE, BANKING COURT NO. 1, GUJRANWALA 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 2002 PLP 1269 (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 2002 PLP 1269 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1269 (CLD) (Rana MUHAMMAD SHAFI and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus M. JAVED ISBAL SIDDIQUI, JUDGE, BANKING COURT NO. 1, GUJRANWALA and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 19 & 22‑‑‑Execution of decree‑‑‑Order of Banking Court allowing decree‑holder Bank to participate in auction‑‑‑No exception could be taken to such order in absence of any prejudice caused to judgment‑debtor‑‑‑High Court dismissed the appeal in circumstances. S.M. Rasheed for the Appellants. Ch. Farrukh Mehmood for the Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal impugns the order, dated 14‑9‑2001, By means of the said order the learned Banking Court has allowed the decree‑holder Bank to participate in the auction. We find nothing wrong with the said order. Learned counsel for the appellant was asked to state this objection to the said order. He merely contended that the participation of the Bank will prejudice the appellant. He, however, was not able to justify such assertions nor could be point out a basis for arguing that the appellant will be prejudiced. In this view of the matter, we find that the impugned order is not open to exception. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. S.A.K./M‑1148/L Appeal dismissed.