2005 PLP 1544 (CLD)
Chaudhary ATHAR ZAHOOR — Appellant Versus JUDGE BANKING COURT NO.2, LAHORE and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1544 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Chaudhary ATHAR ZAHOOR — Appellant Versus JUDGE BANKING COURT NO.2, LAHORE 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 1544 (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 1544 (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 1544 (CLD) (Chaudhary ATHAR ZAHOOR — Appellant Versus JUDGE BANKING COURT NO.2, LAHORE and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Haq Nawaz Chatha for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9, 19 & 22
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 145, 151, O.XXI & O.I, R.10
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 14
Impleading of party, application for
Appellant had challenged application filed by Bank under 0.1, R.10, C.P.C. to implead appellant in execution proceedings contending that 0.1, R.10, C.P.C. was not applicable in execution proceedings
Provisions of 0.1, R.10, C.P.C. were not applicable in execution proceedings
Impugned order was set aside
Bank, however, was well Within its rights to file an application against appellant under S. 145, C.P.C. read with S. 151, C.P.C. and Banking Court would decide the same in accordance with law
Application for condonation of delay in filing appeal was allowed in view of S.14 of Limitation Act, 1908.
Judgment & Decree
The appellant has challenged the vires of order of the Banking Court dated 18-1-2003 through this appeal. Learned counsel of the appellant submits that respondent-Bank filed application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. to implead the appellant in the execution proceedings. He submits that Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. is not applicable in the execution proceedings. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments:-- Ramchandra Barik and others v. Dibakar Das AIR 1944 Patna 278; Rasib Khan v. Abdul Ghani PLD 1995 SC (AJ&K) 83; Dr. Maj. Abdul Ahad Khan v. Muhammad Iqbal PLD 1989 Karachi 102;
2. Learned counsel of the respondent submits that respondent-Bank filed application before the Banking Court under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. read with section 151, C.P.C. Therefore, impugned order is valid. He further submits that respondent-Bank is well within its right to execute the decree against the appellant under section 145, C.P.C.
3. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record ourselves.
4. The provisions of Order I, rule 10, C P.C. are not applicable in execution proceedings. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside. The respondent-Bank is well within its rights to file an application against the appellant under section 145, C.P.C. read with section 151, C.P.C. and Banking Court shall decide the same in accordance with law. With these observations, this appeal is disposed of. B C.M. No.3/C of 2003 This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In view of section 14 of Limitation Act this application is allowed as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:
Sherin v. Fazal Muhammad 1995 SCMR 584 Bashir Ahmad v. Muhammad Sharif PLD 2001 SC
228. H.B.T.A-754/L Order accordingly.