2005 PLP 1525 (CLD)
ASAD PERVAIZ and another — Appellants Versus HABIB BANK LTD. through Manager — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1525 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ASAD PERVAIZ and another — Appellants Versus HABIB BANK LTD. through 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 1525 (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 1525 (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 1525 (CLD) (ASAD PERVAIZ and another — Appellants Versus HABIB BANK LTD. through Manager — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shabbir Ajmal Jaffery for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9, 10 & 22
Application for leave to appear and defend suit
Appellants had contended that though under agreement, Bank was liable to make disbursement of the whole amount of facility, but same was not made in lump sum but in instalments and that they had been making certain payments to and deposits with the Bank but same were not adjusted against their liability according to payments made by them which was an example of lapses and omissions on the part of the Bank
Bank could not controvert said position
Bank could not satisfactorily explain as to what mark-up could be charged for that period when amount was not disbursed
Allowing the appeal, impugned judgment was set aside
Leave was granted to appellants and matter was remanded to Trial Court accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
Respondent-Bank brought a suit for recovery of Rs.5,21,552 against the appellants. The appellants applied for leave to appear and defend the suit, but the same was rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 6-11-2001 and a judgment and decree to the tune of the suit amount has been passed in favour of the respondent-Bank and against the appellants.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants states that though under the buy back agreement dated 27-11-1998 the respondent-Bank was liable to make the disbursement of the whole amount of facility i.e. Rs.5,00,000, but the payment/ disbursement was not made in lump sum rather in instalments as is reflected in statement of account, appended by the Bank with the plaint. Moreover, appellants had been making certain payments/deposits and an amount of Rs.10,800 was paid on 9-6-1999 whereas only an amount of Rs.6,410 was adjusted in the statement. This according to the learned counsel is only one example of such lapses and omissions on part of the Bank.
3. When questioned, learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to controvert the above position. It is also not satisfactorily explained as to what mark-up could be charged for that period when the amount was not disbursed and/or there was any stipulation in the agreement that such disbursement shall be through instalments.
4. Therefore, this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and decree is set aside, leave is granted to the appellants and the matter is remanded to the trial Court, with a direction to the appellants to file their written statement within 15 days, the issues shall be framed the same day and the trial Court shall conclude the matter within three months. H.B.T./A-753/L Appeal allowed.