2005 PLP 1605 (CLD)
Messrs THE JHANG TEXTILE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive of the Company and others — Appellants Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1605 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Messrs THE JHANG TEXTILE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive of the Company and others — Appellants Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1605 (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 2005 PLP 1605 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1605 (CLD) (Messrs THE JHANG TEXTILE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive of the Company and others — Appellants Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti for Respondent.
- The appellants filed this appeal through Ch. Muhammad Rafiq Khan, Advocate. Subsequently Mr. Amir Zahoor Chauhan, Advocate, entered appearance before this Court on 24-5-1999, and stated that the original counsel has since died and requested to make subsequent arrangement. Thereafter the case was fixed on 13-12-1999, and the said Advocate stated that the appellants have taken over the brief on account of the death of the original counsel. Thereafter C.M. No.I-C of 2001, was filed by the appellants through Ch. Muzamal Khan, Advocate. Finally the case was fixed on 9-12-2003, and was adjourned in view of the aforesaid order that the appellants had filed C.M. No.1-C of 2001, through Ch. Muzamal Khan, Advocate, who has since been elevated to the Bench. In this view of the matter the case was adjourned. Office was directed to send notices to the appellants directly as well as through the agency of the Senior Civil Judge concerned. Office sent notices to the parties. Appellants Nos.1 to 3, 9, 10 and 10(i) to 10(ii) were served according to the report of the process server, whereas appellants No. 10(iii) to 10(xii) have left the place of residence. Despite service the appellants did not enter appearance, thus, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9 & 22
Original counsel of appellants having died, they requested to make alternate arrangement
Another counsel appointed by appellants having been elevated to the Bench, case was adjourned and office was directed to send notices to appellants directly as well as through agency of Senior Civil Judge concerned and notices were sent accordingly to the parties
Some of appellants were served according to report of process server, whereas some of the appellants had left their place of residence
Despite service appellants did not enter appearance
Appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Judgment & Decree
The appellants filed this appeal through Ch. Muhammad Rafiq Khan, Advocate. Subsequently Mr. Amir Zahoor Chauhan, Advocate, entered appearance before this Court on 24-5-1999, and stated that the original counsel has since died and requested to make subsequent arrangement. Thereafter the case was fixed on 13-12-1999, and the said Advocate stated that the appellants have taken over the brief on account of the death of the original counsel. Thereafter C.M. No.I-C of 2001, was filed by the appellants through Ch. Muzamal Khan, Advocate. Finally the case was fixed on 9-12-2003, and was adjourned in view of the aforesaid order that the appellants had filed C.M. No.1-C of 2001, through Ch. Muzamal Khan, Advocate, who has since been elevated to the Bench. In this view of the matter the case was adjourned. Office was directed to send notices to the appellants directly as well as through the agency of the Senior Civil Judge concerned. Office sent notices to the parties. Appellants Nos.1 to 3, 9, 10 and 10(i) to 10(ii) were served according to the report of the process server, whereas appellants No. 10(iii) to 10(xii) have left the place of residence. Despite service the appellants did not enter appearance, thus, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. H.B.T./J-4/L Appeal dismissed.