2005 PLP 1506 (CLD)
Messrs ARSH MASROOR PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive — Appellant Versus Messrs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED through Manager and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1506 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Messrs ARSH MASROOR PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive — Appellant Versus Messrs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED through Manager and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1506 (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 1506 (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 1506 (CLD) (Messrs ARSH MASROOR PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive — Appellant Versus Messrs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED through Manager and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Nasir Mehmood for Respondent No.1.
- Farzana Khan for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.
Headnotes / Summary
S.9
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42
Failure to give reasons
Pendency of suit for recovery of bank loan
Borrower filed declaratory suit in Banking Court, prior to the suit filed by bank against the borrower
Banking Court dismissed the suit of borrower on the ground that he could seek any relief from the Court where the suit for recovery of bank loan was pending against him by way of submission of application for grant of leave under S.10 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
Banking Court had passed the judgment without application of mind, therefore, the judgment passed by Banking Court in suit filed by borrower was not sustainable in the eyes of law
Judgment and decree passed against the borrower was set aside and the case was remanded to Banking Court for decision afresh in accordance with law
Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.
The brief facts, out of which the present appeal arises are, that the appellant filed a suit for the declaration against the respondents in the Banking Court No.II, Faisalabad, which was dismissed by the Banking Court vide judgment dated 29-5-2002, hence the present appeal.
2. Learned counsel of the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further submits that the learned Judge has passed the impugned judgment without application of mind. He further urged that the appellant's suit is prior to the suit of the respondents, therefore, the learned Banking Court erred in law to dismiss the suit of the appellant on surmises and conjectures.
3. Learned counsel of the respondents submits that the judgment and decree of the learned Banking Court is valid as in case the suit of the respondents be allowed by the Banking Court, then it tantamounts that the suit of the appellant would be dismissed automatically.
4. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record ourselves. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the impugned judgment and decree to resolve the controversy between the parties: "The relief claimed by the plaintiff in this suit cannot be granted by way of declaration and in my opinion plaintiff can seek any relief from the Court where a suit for recovery is already pending against him by way of submission of application for grant of leave under section 10 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 or by other means under law. This suit is not proceedable, hence is hereby dismissed."
5. The bare reading of the aforesaid operative part of the judgment clearly shows, that the Banking Court has passed the impugned judgment without application of mind, therefore, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Mollah Ejahar All v. Government of East Pakistan and others PLD 1970 SC
173. In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned judgment and decree is set aside meaning thereby, that the suit filed by the appellant shall be deemed to be pending adjudication before the Banking Court No.II, Faisalabad. The parties are directed to appear before the Banking Court on 20-6-2005, who is directed to decide the suit of the appellant in accordance with law. With these observations, this appeal is accepted and the case is remanded. M.H./A-475/L Case remanded.