2016 PLP 596 (CLD)
RIAZ AHMAD (RANA RIAZ ANJUM) and another — Appellants Versus The BANK OF PUNJAB — Respondent
| Citation | 2016 PLP 596 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | RIAZ AHMAD (RANA RIAZ ANJUM) and another — Appellants Versus The BANK OF PUNJAB — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), (a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 596 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), (a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 596 (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: 2016 PLP 596 (CLD) (RIAZ AHMAD (RANA RIAZ ANJUM) and another — Appellants Versus The BANK OF PUNJAB — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Saleem Iqbal for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9 & 22
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)
Plea of fraud and misrepresentation
Principle
Defendants assailed judgment and decree passed by Banking Court in favour of Bank on the plea of misrepresentation and fraud which application was dismissed by Banking Court
Application filed under S. 12(2), C.P.C. did not mention any particulars constituting fraud and misrepresentation on the part of Bank in obtaining judgment and decree from Banking Court
Fact that Bank applied to insurance company for realization of insurance claim had no bearing on recovery suit filed by it against defendants, which was only concerned with determination of liability against defendants
Defendants had full opportunity to defend their case before Banking Court which decided the suit on the basis of available record
Not necessary for a court to always prove issues on application filed under S. 12(2), C.P.C., more so when particulars of fraud and misrepresentation were missing
Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
S. 9
Realization of the insurance claim by Insurance Company
Insurance company cannot be made party in a recovery suit.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal is directed against order dated 09.07.2013 passed by the learned Judge Banking Court, Multan whereby he dismissed the application filed under section 12(2), C.P.C. by the appellants.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the respondent bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs.755,682/- from the appellants, wherein the appellants filed the application for leave to defend along with an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. for impleading State Life Insurance Company as party to the suit. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the learned Judge Banking Court dismissed the application for leave to defend as well as the application filed under Order I, Rule 10 of C.P.C. and decreed the suit on 18.06.2012. The appellants thereafter filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. for setting aside judgment and decree dated 18.06.2012 on the ground that the respondent bank had filed the insurance claim with State Life Insurance Company which shows that it had obtained the decree by practicing fraud upon the Banking Court. It was further stated that the bank's claim lay against the Insurance Company and not against the appellants. Written reply to the said application was filed by the respondent Bank. After hearing the arguments on the said application; learned Judge Banking Court dismissed the same on 09.07.2013.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the stance taken in the application filed under section 12(2), C.P.C. and further submitted that Banking Court ought to have framed the issues and recorded evidence before dismissing the said application.
4. After hearing the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the appellants and perusal of the record we have come to the conclusion that this appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. The application filed under section 12(2), C.P.C. did not mention any particulars constituting fraud and misrepresentation on the part of respondent bank in obtaining the judgment and decree from the Banking Court. The fact that the respondent bank had applied to the insurance company for realization of the insurance claim had no bearing on the recovery suit filed by it against the appellants which was only concerned with the determination of liability against the appellants. Be that as it may, the appellants had full opportunity to defend their case before the learned Banking Court which decided the suit on the basis of the available record. The application filed by the appellants under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. was rightly dismissed by the learned Judge Banking Court as under the provisions of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, the insurance company cannot be made a party in a recovery suit. The realization of the insurance claim, if at all it happens, is a matter to be agitated before the learned Executing Court. It is also not necessary for a Court to always prove issues on an application filed under section 12(2), C.P.C. more so when the particulars of fraud and misrepresentation are missing (See Messrs Dadabhoy Cement Industries Limited and 6 others v. National Development Finance Corporation Karachi (PLD 2002 SC 500).
5. In the circumstances, this appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with no orders as to cost. MH/R-15/L Appeal dismissed.