2026 PLP 656 (CLD)
Messrs ALI HAMZA TRADING COMPANY through Managing Partner and others — Appellants Versus ALLIED BANK LIMITED through Principal Officers / General Attorneys — Respondent
| Citation | 2026 PLP 656 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Messrs ALI HAMZA TRADING COMPANY through Managing Partner and others — Appellants Versus ALLIED BANK LIMITED through Principal Officers / General Attorneys — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2026 PLP 656 (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 2026 PLP 656 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2026 PLP 656 (CLD) (Messrs ALI HAMZA TRADING COMPANY through Managing Partner and others — Appellants Versus ALLIED BANK LIMITED through Principal Officers / General Attorneys — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saleem Iqbal for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 9(5)
Suit for recovery filed by Bank
Application for leave to defend (PLA), filing of
Limitation, computing of
Date of service to defendant, exclusion of
Scope
Application for leave to defend (PLA) filed by the appellant / defendant was dismissed by the Banking Court for being time barred by one day
Under S. 9(5) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 ('the Ordinance, 2001'), PLA is to be submitted within a period of 30-days
In the present case, since the Defendants were served through Bailiff on 06.07.2020, therefore, the time to file PLA terminated on 04.08.2020 and the Appellants filed their PLA on 05.08.2020
However, the date of service is not to be included while computing the period of limitation under the provisions of Ordinance, 2001, therefore, on said score the Banking Court erred in law to hold that PLA filed by the Appellants was barred by time, and the impugned judgment and decree merited to be set aside
High / Appellate Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree and the PLA filed by the appellants, being within time , would deemed to be pending before the Banking Court, which would decide the same afresh
Regular First Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD RAZA QURESHI, J.
This Regular First Appeal under Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, (the Ordinance ) calls into question Judgment dated 26.10.2022 passed by the learned Judge Banking Court, Dera Ghazi Khan, pursuant whereto interestingly, the application for leave to defend (PLA) filed by the Appellants was initially dismissed being barred by time and on the same day, through a separate interim order said PLA was dismissed for non-prosecution and yet learned Court below discussed the merits of said PLA and decided the Suit filed by the Respondent Bank on merits and decreed the same as per para-12 of the Judgment.
2. The primary question before us appears to be whether the PLA filed by the Appellants was barred by time or not as the learned Banking Court held that under Section 9(5) of the Ordinance PLA was to be submitted within a period of 30-days. Since the Defendants were served through Bailiff on 06.07.2020, therefore, the time to file PLA terminated on 04.08.2020 and the Appellants filed their PLA on 05.08.2020. The question whether the date of service is to be included while computing period of 30 days or not is not much difficult to answer as Judgment reported as Messrs Shahi Textiles and 3 others v. Askari Bank Limited through President (2011 CLD 995) and law declared by the Courts thereafter, consistently hold that the date of service is not to be included while computing the period of limitation under the provisions of the Ordinance. Therefore, on this score alone, the Impugned Judgment and Decree merit to be set aside and the learned Banking Court erred in law to hold that PLA filed by the Appellants was barred by time.
3. Consequently, we set aside the Impugned Judgment and Decree. However, the order sheet reflects that the Appellants throughout avoided hearing and the learned Banking Court though wrongly yet had been constrained to dismiss the same PLA for non-prosecution. On account of defaulting conduct of the Appellants this Appeal, is allowed subject to costs of Rs.100,000/-. The PLA filed by the Appellants is within time and same will be deemed to be pending before the learned Banking Court, who shall decide the same afresh after hearing learned counsel for the parties. Upon the request of learned counsel for the Respondent Bank, we direct learned Banking Court to decide the fate of the PLA within a period of two months. MQ/A-11/L Appeal allowed.