2003 PLP 683 (CLD)
Messrs HABIB BANK LIMITED — Plaintiff Versus Messrs PAN ISLAMIC STEAMSHIP CO. LIMITED and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 683 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Messrs HABIB BANK LIMITED — Plaintiff Versus Messrs PAN ISLAMIC STEAMSHIP CO. LIMITED and others — Respondents |
| 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 2003 PLP 683 (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 2003 PLP 683 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 683 (CLD) (Messrs HABIB BANK LIMITED — Plaintiff Versus Messrs PAN ISLAMIC STEAMSHIP CO. LIMITED and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mr. Salim Salam Ansari, Advocate has submitted the original passport of the defendant No.7 issued on 10-11-1990 and original N.I.C. of the said defendant issued on 3-3-2000, for comparing the signature of the defendant No.7, on the said two documents with those appearing on the purported letter of guarantee, Annexure C/4 to the plaint. I find it difficult to form any opinion regarding the genuineness of the signatures through such comparison, therefore, With the consent of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendant No.7, I refer the matter to a handwriting expert whose name and address shall be supplied by the learned counsel to the office of this Court within a period of one week. Learned counsel for the defendant No.7 shall produce before the handwriting expert the original passport of the defendant No.7 issued on 10-11-1990 and the N.I.C. of the said defendant, whereas the learned counsel for the plaintiff shall submit before him the original letter of guarantee dated 20-11-1990, a copy whereof has been annexed to the plaint as Annexure C/4. The handwriting expert after examining and comparing the signature of defendant No.7 namely Nawabzada Salahuddin Abbasi, appearing on these three documents shall submit his comprehensive anti detailed report to this Court as to whether the signatures appearing on the aforesaid letter of guarantee are of the same person whose signature appears on the aforesaid passport and N.I.C. namely the defendant No.7. Such report shall be submitted by the handwriting expert to this Court within a period of three weeks from today. Learned counsel shall place the documents before the handwriting expert on 3-12-2002.
- Mr. Asim Mansoor, Advocate submits that the defendant No.3 has not signed the purported letter of guarantee Annexure C/1 to the plaint. He states that on 20-11-1990 the date on which the purported guarantee is alleged to have been signed by the defendant No.3 the said defendant was not in Pakistan as would be evident from his passport, photocopies of the relevant pages whereof have been annexed to the application and the original whereof has been placed before this Court, today such passport was also handed over to Mr. A.R. Akhtar, so that he may verify that the defendant No.3 has not entered Pakistan, during the relevant period and also that the said defendant was not in the country on 20-11-1990, whereupon Mr. A.R. Akhtar has frankly conceded that the passport does not bear any entry, which may show that the defendant No.3 was in Pakistan during the relevant time. Mr. Asim further submits that even in their application the plaintiff-Bank has neither denied the fact that during the period as mentioned in the application the defendant No.3 was hospitalized in U.K. and that he was in England on the day the purported guarantee is said to have been signed by him.
Headnotes / Summary
S.10
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 59 & 84-- Leave to defend, application for
Defendant denied to have signed letter of guarantee annexed with plaint
Court itself could not form any opinion regarding genuineness of signatures of defendant by comparing his signatures on original passport and national identity card with those appearing on letter of guarantee
Court with consent of parties referred such matter to Handwriting Expert for his opinion.
S.10
Leave to appear and defend suit, application for-- Defendant dented to have signed letter of guarantee annexed with plaint as he was abroad at the relevant time for medical treatment
Plaintiffs counsel conceded after examining original passport that same did not bear any entry showing that defendant was in Pakistan during the relevant time
Such matter required evidence to enable Bank to establish that letter of guarantee had to fact been signed by the defendant
Court granted to defendant unconditional leave to appear and defend suit with direction to parties to record their evidence on issue, whether letter of guarantee bore signatures of defendant.
Judgment & Decree
A. R. Akhtar for Plaintiff. Asim Mansoor for Defendant No.3. Salam Ansari for Defendant No.
7. Mr. Salim Salam Ansari, Advocate has submitted the original passport of the defendant No.7 issued on 10-11-1990 and original N.I.C. of the said defendant issued on 3-3-2000, for comparing the signature of the defendant No.7, on the said two documents with those appearing on the purported letter of guarantee, Annexure C/4 to the plaint. I find it difficult to form any opinion regarding the genuineness of the signatures through such comparison, therefore, With the consent of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendant No.7, I refer the matter to a handwriting expert whose name and address shall be supplied by the learned counsel to the office of this Court within a period of one week. Learned counsel for the defendant No.7 shall produce before the handwriting expert the original passport of the defendant No.7 issued on 10-11-1990 and the N.I.C. of the said defendant, whereas the learned counsel for the plaintiff shall submit before him the original letter of guarantee dated 20-11-1990, a copy whereof has been annexed to the plaint as Annexure C/4. The handwriting expert after examining and comparing the signature of defendant No.7 namely Nawabzada Salahuddin Abbasi, appearing on these three documents shall submit his comprehensive anti detailed report to this Court as to whether the signatures appearing on the aforesaid letter of guarantee are of the same person whose signature appears on the aforesaid passport and N.I.C. namely the defendant No.7. Such report shall be submitted by the handwriting expert to this Court within a period of three weeks from today. Learned counsel shall place the documents before the handwriting expert on 3-12-2002. Mr. Asim Mansoor, Advocate submits that the defendant No.3 has not signed the purported letter of guarantee Annexure C/1 to the plaint. He states that on 20-11-1990 the date on which the purported guarantee is alleged to have been signed by the defendant No.3 the said defendant was not in Pakistan as would be evident from his passport, photocopies of the relevant pages whereof have been annexed to the application and the original whereof has been placed before this Court, today such passport was also handed over to Mr. A.R. Akhtar, so that he may verify that the defendant No.3 has not entered Pakistan, during the relevant period and also that the said defendant was not in the country on 20-11-1990, whereupon Mr. A.R. Akhtar has frankly conceded that the passport does not bear any entry, which may show that the defendant No.3 was in Pakistan during the relevant time. Mr. Asim further submits that even in their application the plaintiff-Bank has neither denied the fact that during the period as mentioned in the application the defendant No.3 was hospitalized in U.K. and that he was in England on the day the purported guarantee is said to have been signed by him. In the circumstance, I am of the view that the matter requires evidence to enable the bank to establish that the guarantee. Annexure C/1 to the plaint, has in fact been signed by the defendant No.3. In view of the foregoing the defendant No.3 is granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the suit. Since the only issue pertaining to the defendant No.3 in this case is whether the letter of guarantee dated 20-11-1990 bears the signature of the defendant No.3 (Annexure C/1 to the plaint). The plaintiff and the defendant No-3 shall record their evidence of the above issues only. Adjourned to 18-12-2002 for further hearing of C.M.A. No.299 of 2002. I have already heard the learned counsel for the other defendants and order on their application, is reserved. S.A.K./H-82/K Order accordingly.