2005 PLP 1634 (CLD)
ABDUL WAHAB and another — Appellants Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Chairman and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1634 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL WAHAB and another — Appellants Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Chairman and 4 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 1634 (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 1634 (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 1634 (CLD) (ABDUL WAHAB and another — Appellants Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Chairman and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Shakeel Akhtar Hashmi for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9 & 22
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 11
Appellants/alleged borrowers had instituted a suit seeking a declaration against the Bank to the effect that they had not taken any loan and any entry in that regard in the Bank record was liable to be ignored as being based on forgery and fraud
Plaint of appellants was rejected by the Banking Court
Plaint of the appellants, prima facie, did disclose a cause of action, thus O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. could not have been applied to the same
Rejection of plaint by the Banking Court could not be blessed with sanctity and impugned judgment was set aside
Case was remanded to the Banking Court for disposal according to law.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.
The appellants instituted a suit seeking a declaration against the respondents to the effect that they had not taken any loan and any entry in this regard in the bank record was liable to be ignored as being based on forgery and fraud. Their plaint was rejected by the learned Judge Banking Court No.II, Multan, vide judgment dated 21-5-2002. Hence this appeal under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, is directed against the same.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. The learned trial Court rejected plaint of the appellants on the ground that their earlier suit on the same cause of action had already been dismissed and this fact was concealed in the present suit, but it was not noticed at all that this fact was also mentioned in the plaint, wherein it was categorically averred that earlier suit of the appellants was dismissed for non-prosecution at the stage when the respondents were not even summoned.
4. It is stated in Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C.:-- (a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) Where the relief claimed is under-valued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) Where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.
5. Seen in the context of Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., plaint of the appellant's prima facie did disclose a cause of action, thus the said provision of law could not have been applied to the same. This being so the rejection of the plaint by the learned trial Court vide the impugned judgment cannot be blessed with legal sanctity and this appeal is allowed by setting aside the same and the case is remanded to the learned trial Court for onward disposal in accordance with law. It is also directed that the matter shall be decided expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the next date of the appearance of the parties. Record be immediately sent back to the learned trial Court. M.B.A./A-527/L Case remanded.