2005 PLP 1740 (CLD)
GHULAM RASOOL — Appellant Versus ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LIMITED (ZTBL) through Branch Manager — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1740 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM RASOOL — Appellant Versus ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LIMITED (ZTBL) through Branch Manager — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1740 (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 1740 (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 1740 (CLD) (GHULAM RASOOL — Appellant Versus ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LIMITED (ZTBL) through Branch Manager — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Karamat Ali Awan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9, 10 & 22
Application for leave to appear and defend suit
Dismissal of application--.-Son of defendant appeared before the Court on the date fixed for hearing the application for leave to appear and defend suit but his presence was not marked and leave application was dismissed for non-prosecution and suit by plaintiff was decreed
Son of defendant was verbally authorized to appear on behalf of defendant and only request was made by him to keep matter pending till counsel for defendant would come and argue leave application, but Court had hastily turned down the request and passed decree
Court, in circumstances, should have kept matter pending and should not have hastily dismissed leave application for non-prosecution when son of defendant was present in the Court
Said application could have been adjourned subject to payment of costs, and no harsh action should have been taken
Judgment and decree passed by Banking Court was set aside and order of dismissal of leave application for non-prosecution was also set aside
Leave application of defendant was to be deemed pending which would be decided in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
The appellant is the defendant in a suit for recovery brought by the respondent-Bank. He was served and filed the application for leave to appear and defend, which was fixed for hearing on 3-3-2004, when Nazim Hussain, son of the appellant appeared before the Court, but his presence was not marked and by dismissing the leave application for non-prosecution, the suit has been decreed to the tune of Rs.3,23,320, hence this appeal.
2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that, son of the appellant was verbally authorized to appear on behalf of the appellant and the only request was made to keep the matter pending till the counsel for the appellant would come and argue the leave application, but the learned Court has hastily turned down the request and passed the decree.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that the defect is apparent on the face of the record. The Court, in the circumstances, should have kept the matter pending and should not have hastily dismissed the leave application for non-prosecution when son of the appellant was present in the Court; may be the application could have been adjourned subject to the payment of costs, but no harsh action should have been taken. Resultantly, such judgment and decree is not sustainable, which is hereby set aside and the order of dismissal of the leave application for non-prosecution is also set aside. The leave application of the appellant shall be deemed pending and the Banking Court is directed to decide the same in accordance with law. This appeal is accordingly allowed. C.M. No.438-C of 2004 As no substantial proceedings have been held in the present case, therefore, office is directed to prepare a Certificate for the refund of the court-fee to the applicant /appellant. Disposed of. H.B.T./G-46/L Appeal allowed.