2006 PLP 232 (CLD)
MARIANNE KHAN — Appellant Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 232 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Sabihuddin Ahmed, C.J. and Zia Perwaz, J |
| Parties | MARIANNE KHAN — Appellant Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 232 (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 2006 PLP 232 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Sabihuddin Ahmed, C.J. and Zia Perwaz, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 232 (CLD) (MARIANNE KHAN — Appellant Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asim Mansoor Khan for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
S.19-Execution of decree
Suit by mortgager to declare such property as not mortgaged in favour of Bank
Dismissal of mortgagor's suit by Trial Court remained upheld up to Supreme Court
Mortgagor's objection as to non-existence of mortgage
Executing Court rejected such objection and confirmed sale in favour of purchaser
Controversy as to existence or otherwise of mortgage had been finally resolved at the level of Supreme Court
Executing Court was justified in not allowing mortgagor to raise such issue de novo
Decree under execution had been passed jointly and severally against all defendants including mortgagor
Factum of mortgage having been recognized, misdescription in decree regarding mortgagors would be a clerical mistake
High Court dismissed appeal in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
1. Granted.
2. Granted subject to all just exceptions. 3 and
4. This appeal is directed against the order of the III-Banking Court, Karachi confirming sales of her property in favour of the respondent No.8. It appears that the respondent No.1 had filed a suit for recovery of the amount of outstanding debts against the appellants and respondents Nos.2 to
7. It was alleged that some money was advanced to the respondent No.2 company and as security for repayment a property owned by appellant and the respondent No.3 was mortgaged. Respondents Nos.3 to 8 had executed personal guarantee for repayment. The suit was jointly and severally decreed as against the appellant and the respondents Nos.2 to 8 and the judgment and decree was not questioned before any higher forum. The appellant had also filed a suit for declaration that the property in question had not been mortgaged in favour of the respondent No.1 but the suit was dismissed and an appeal to the Division Bench as well as a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court met the same fate as candidly stated by learned counsel. Mr. Asim Mansoor Khan learned counsel for the appellant has raised two contentions. In the first place he urged that the findings in the impugned order relating to mortgage of property, without considering the appellant's point of view was liable to be set aside. We are afraid we cannot subscribe to this view. Indeed the controversy regarding existence or otherwise of the mortgage had been finally resolved at the level of the Honourable Supreme Court and therefore, the learned Banking Judge was perfectly justified in not allowing the appellant to raise the issue de novo. Alternatively the learned counsel contended that the appellant was ready and willing to deposit his share of the liability towards respondent No.1 and in consideration thereof the mortgaged property ought to be released. We are afraid there is no force in this contention as the trial Court had evidently decreed the suit "jointly and severally" against all defendants. The contention that the decree speaks of mortgage B of the property of defendants Nos.1 and 3 whereas appellant was defendant No.4 is equally untenable, as once the factum of mortgage has been recognized the misdescription could only be a clerical mistake for these reasons we would dismiss this appeal in limine along with listed applications. S.A.K. /M-11 /K Appeal dismissed.