1987 PLP 717 (SCMR)
Malik MUHAMMAD ARIF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 717 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Mian Burhanuddin Khan |
| Parties | Malik MUHAMMAD ARIF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 717 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 717 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Mian Burhanuddin Khan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 717 (SCMR) (Malik MUHAMMAD ARIF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rafiq Javed Butt, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 3rd February, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 28‑10‑1986 in R.F.A. No. 166 of 1986). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979), S.6‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
0. XXXVI, Rr.2(2) & 3‑‑Suit for recovery of Bank loans‑‑Defendant failing to apply for leave to appear and defend within time‑‑Ex parte decree upheld by High Court‑‑Plea that defendant being out of country no service of notice was effected upon him and application for leave to appear and defend was delayed, not sustained‑‑Neither such plea was taken before Banking Court nor condonation of delay was sought‑‑Not being a fit case for grant of leave, petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment dated 28‑10‑1986 of the Lahore High Court which affirmed the judgment and decree dated 4‑8‑1986 of the Special Judge, Banking Court, Lahore.
2. The petitioner was an employee of the National Bank of Pakistan. During the course of his employment he obtained three loans from the bank. Later he was dismissed from service. On 2‑3‑1985 the bank filed a suit against him for the recovery of Rs.23,123.82 on account of the said loans. The suit was decreed ex parte by the Banking Court as the petitioner failed to apply for leave to appear and defend within time. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the High Court. After holding that no valid justification had been made out for not moving the Court within time, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
3. In support of this petition it is contended that at the time when the suit was filed he was out of the country and as such no service of summons was effected upon him; further, the suit of the bank was barred by time.
4. The petitioner does not dispute that he had in fact obtained the loans in question from the bank although he alleges that he had paid off the entire amount. The suit was filed on 2‑3‑1985. On 7‑5‑1985 a counsel appeared on his behalf before the Court, filed a memorandum of appearance and sought an adjournment to file an application for leave to appear and defend the suit. The case was then taken up on 15‑7‑1985. On this day his counsel informed the Court that the petitioner was in Saudi Arabia and that it was on the instructions of his wife that he had appeared in the Court on the last date of hearing. He sought an adjournment to file a Vakalatnama and the application for leave to appear and defend the suit. The Court adjourned the proceedings to 10‑9‑1985. On this date the petitioner did file the requisite application.
5. It is to be noticed that on 7‑5‑1985 when a counsel appeared on his behalf in Court he did not take up the position on that day that the petitioner was out of the country or that it was not the petitioner, but his wife who had received the summons. The petitioner states that he left the country on 11‑3‑1985 and returned for a short period on 22‑8‑1985. The application for leave to appear and defend the suit was filed on 10‑9‑1985, that is more than 10 days after his return to Pakistan. During the proceedings before the Special Judge the petitioner did not seek condonation of delay. Had any such prayer been made the question of non‑service would have been no doubt examined by the learned Judge. In the circumstances we do not think that this is a fit case where leave to appeal should be granted. Dismissed. M . I . / M‑28/ S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.