2009 PLP 300 (MLD)
LASHKARI — Appellant Versus MANAGER, AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN, DADU BRANCH and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 300 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | LASHKARI — Appellant Versus MANAGER, AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN, DADU BRANCH and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 300 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 300 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi 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 300 (MLD) (LASHKARI — Appellant Versus MANAGER, AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN, DADU BRANCH and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khadim Hussain Shaikh for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 42 & 54
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.96, 151 & O.VII, R.11(b)
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), S.3
Suit for declaration, injunction and settlement of accounts
Trial Court passed an order requiring the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court-fee on the suit amount of Rs.2,00,00 within a period of 7 days, but said order was not complied with by the plaintiff and plaint was rejected under O.VII, R.11(b), C.P.C.
No legal infirmity, error or irregularity having been pointed out in the impugned order plaint was rightly rejected in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
The appellant has impugned the order, dated 7-8-1999 passed by Banking Court-II, Hyderabad dismissing an application under section 151, C.P.C. read with Order VII, Rule 11(b); C.P.C. and section 3 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that appellant Lashkari instituted suit for declaration, injunction and settlement of accounts. The said suit was contested by the party concerned. On 10-4-1999 the trial Court passed an order requiring the plaintiff/appellant to pay ad valorem court-fee on the suit amount of Rs.2,00,000 within a period of 7 days. These directions do not seem to have been complied with. Learned counsel for appellant also admits non-compliance. It appears that on 20-4-1999 the appellant moved an application for recalling the orders directing him to pay court-fees. Certified copy of the application is available at page 93 of this file. There is nothing on record as to what appended to this application. The memo. of appeal is also silent. Be that as it may on the same day i.e. 20-4-1999 when afore-mentioned application under section 151, C.P.C. was moved, the appellant also moved another application under section 114 read with section 151 requesting learned lower Court for review of orders rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. which was disallowed. Neither copy of order rejecting the plaint nor the order disallowing the review application has been placed on record which fact has also been admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. It however, seems that the appellant again moved on 26-7-1999 an application under section 151, C.P.C. read with Order VII, Rule 11(b) and section 3 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, inter alia, requesting the trial Court to recall the order, dated 24-7-1999 of dismissal of suit which has also been, dismissed under the impugned order, dated 7-8-1999. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. No legal infirmity, error or irregularity has been pointed out by the learned counsel. He has also pressed into service no tangible ground in support of this appeal. This appeal also does not appear to be competent in the afore-stated circumstances. It is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./L-9/K Appeal dismissed.