2022 PLP 1310 (CLD)
STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman and another — Appellants Versus Mst. SHAHIDA PARVEEN — Respondent
| Citation | 2022 PLP 1310 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman and another — Appellants Versus Mst. SHAHIDA PARVEEN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 1310 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2022 PLP 1310 (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: 2022 PLP 1310 (CLD) (STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman and another — Appellants Versus Mst. SHAHIDA PARVEEN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Zafar Iqbal for Respondent.
- 2. The only question of law raised by learned counsel for appellants is that learned Additional District Judge, Khanewal (Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Baloch) on 09.10.2019 was not a notified Tribunal in terms of section 121 of the Ordinance. In pursuant to direction of this Court, learned District and Sessions Judge, Khanewal has submitted a report, according to which Mr. Ghulam Mujtaba Baloch Additional District Judge, Khanwal was not notified as Insurance Tribunal on 09.10.2019. Admittedly in this situation, the impugned order cannot be defended by learned counsel for respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 121
Constitution of the Insurance Tribunal
Scope
Appellants assailed order passed by Additional District Judge whereby their application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings and order was dismissed
Contention of appellants was that the Additional District Judge was not a notified Tribunal in terms of S. 121 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000
Report sought from the District and Sessions Judge concerned confirmed the contention of the appellants
High Court observed that the impugned order could not be defended
Appeal was allowed, impugned order was set aside, and it was directed that application filed by appellants would be deemed to be pending and would be decided by the Insurance Tribunal duly notified in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal under section 124 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 (Ordinance) is directed against an order dated 09.10.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khanewal on the basis of which an application filed by the appellants for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings and order dated 12.10.2018 was dismissed.
2. The only question of law raised by learned counsel for appellants is that learned Additional District Judge, Khanewal (Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Baloch) on 09.10.2019 was not a notified Tribunal in terms of section 121 of the Ordinance. In pursuant to direction of this Court, learned District and Sessions Judge, Khanewal has submitted a report, according to which Mr. Ghulam Mujtaba Baloch Additional District Judge, Khanwal was not notified as Insurance Tribunal on 09.10.2019. Admittedly in this situation, the impugned order cannot be defended by learned counsel for respondent.
3. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned order is set-aside with direction that the application filed by the appellants shall be deemed to be pending and shall be decided by the learned Insurance Tribunal duly notified in accordance with law. SA/S-34/L Appeal allowed.