2002 PLP 667 (CLD)
and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus Mst. MERAJ BIBI‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 667 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ |
| Parties | and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus Mst. MERAJ BIBI‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 667 (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 2002 PLP 667 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 667 (CLD) (and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus Mst. MERAJ BIBI‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Haider Ali Shah for Appellants.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 9 & 22‑‑‑Customer filed suit against Bank for rendition of accounts‑‑‑Bank duly rendered the accounts‑‑‑Banking Court ordered the Bank to pay a sum of Rs.9,400 to the customer‑‑ Bank contended that after having rendered accounts, the customer was left with no further cause of action‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑No occasion for passing such order existed for the Banking Court‑‑ High Court accepted appeal and set aside impugned order, whereby Bank was directed to pay such amount to the customer. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
E.F.A. No.815 of 2001, decided on 14th February, 2002. ‑‑‑‑Ss. 9 & 22‑‑‑Customer filed suit against Bank for rendition of accounts‑‑‑Bank duly rendered the accounts‑‑‑Banking Court ordered the Bank to pay a sum of Rs.9,400 to the customer‑‑ Bank contended that after having rendered accounts, the customer was left with no further cause of action‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑No occasion for passing such order existed for the Banking Court‑‑ High Court accepted appeal and set aside impugned order, whereby Bank was directed to pay such amount to the customer. Syed Haider Ali Shah for Appellants. Respondent in person. The respondent‑plaintiff had filed a suit against the appellant for rendition of accounts. The accounts have been duly rendered by the appellant‑Bank. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that in this manner there remains no further cause of action vesting in the respondent. He also states that now the appellant‑Bank has itself filed a suit for recovery of an amount which is due and payable by the defendant Mst. Mehraj Bibi. We also note from para. 5 of the judgment that the present suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff' was decreed in her favour and as a result the appellant‑defendant was ordered to render correct accounts. In this view of the matter, there was no occasion for passing the order, directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.9,400 to the respondent. In the circumstances, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order, dated 12‑11‑2001 directing the appellant‑Bank to pay a sum of Rs.9,400 is set aside. S.A.K./A-425/L Appeal allowed.