2011 PLP 1854 (SCMR)
Messrs SILK BANK LIMITED — Petitioner Versus Qazi EHTISHAMUL HAQ and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 PLP 1854 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sarmad Jalal Osmany and Amir Hani Muslim JJ |
| Parties | Messrs SILK BANK LIMITED — Petitioner Versus Qazi EHTISHAMUL HAQ and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 1854 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP 1854 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sarmad Jalal Osmany and Amir Hani Muslim JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP 1854 (SCMR) (Messrs SILK BANK LIMITED — Petitioner Versus Qazi EHTISHAMUL HAQ and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nafis Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Khalique Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and A.S.K. Ghori, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 2.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 3.
- Date of hearing: 23rd February, 2011.
- SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.---We have heard both the learned Advocates Supreme Court. The controversy in the matter is of a technical nature i.e., whether in order to have the judgment and decree dated 20-2-2008 passed by the learned High Court in First Appeal No.D-39 of 2007 set aside, the respondents should have approached that court itself or the learned Banking Court.
- 3. Mr. Khalique Ahmad, learned Counsel for respondent No.2, when confronted with this proposition, has stated very fairly that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents would now approach the Learned High Court for their remedy in H.C. Appeal No.39 of 2007.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 22-5-2010 of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi passed in First Appeal No. 42 of 2009).
S. 12(2)
Principle
Judgment and decree of a court can only be assailed before that court, when aggrieved party seeks to have it set aside on the ground that either the party was not served or that the same was obtained through misrepresentation, fraud etc.
S. 12(2)
First appeal was allowed by High Court and judgment and decree passed by Banking Court was varied by enhancing the claim of bank along with cost of funds by way of sale of mortgaged properties of defendants
On application under S. 12(2), C.P.C., filed by defendants, Banking Court set aside the judgment passed by High Court in favour of bank
Judgment and decree passed by High Court attained finality and that of Banking Court merged therein, therefore, proper forum for assailing such decree was High Court and not Banking Court
Judgment and decree passed by High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction was set aside and if defendant would file application under S.12(2), C.P.C. the same was to be decided by High Court
Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.
We have heard both the learned Advocates Supreme Court. The controversy in the matter is of a technical nature i.e., whether in order to have the judgment and decree dated 20-2-2008 passed by the learned High Court in First Appeal No.D-39 of 2007 set aside, the respondents should have approached that court itself or the learned Banking Court.
2. Mr. Nafis Ahmad Siddiqui, learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that per settled law where a party seeks to set aside a judgment and decree passed by any Court, only that particular Court can be approached and not any other Court. Consequently, the impugned judgment passed by the Learned High Court in First Appeal No.42 of 2009 upholding the order passed by the Learned Banking Court reversing its own judgment and decree which was varied vide judgment passed in First Appeal No. D-39 of 2007, is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.
3. Mr. Khalique Ahmad, learned Counsel for respondent No.2, when confronted with this proposition, has stated very fairly that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents would now approach the Learned High Court for their remedy in H.C. Appeal No.39 of 2007.
4. The law is well settled i.e., that under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. or for that matter under the general law, the judgment and decree of a Court can only be assailed before that Court when the aggrieved party seeks to have it set aside on the ground that either it was not served or that the same was obtained through mis-representation, fraud, etc. It would be seen that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Banking Court on 8-6-2007 was assailed by the petitioner in First Appeal No.D-39 of 2007. As observed above, vide order dated 20-2-2008, the first appeal was allowed and judgment and decree passed by the learned Banking Court was varied by enhancing the claim of the petitioner to Rs.8.272 million along with cost of funds by way of sale of the mortgaged properties of the respondents. Hence, in our opinion, thereafter, this judgment and decree attained finality and the judgment and decree of the lower Court merged therein. Consequently, the proper forum for assailing such decree was the High Court and not the Banking Court.
5. In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition is converted into an appeal and is allowed by consent, to the extent that the judgment dated 15-4-2010 of the learned High Court passed in First Appeal No.42 of 2009 is set aside. The respondents may, if they so like, approach the High Court for setting aside of the judgment and decree passed in First Appeal No. D-39 of 2007 by filing of an application and if such is filed, execution proceedings would be suspended till the disposal of the said application.
6. This petition stands disposed of in the above terms. M.H./S-39/SC Appeal allowed.