1987 PLP 406 (MLD)
another — Appellants Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED, CLOCK TOWER, FAISALABAD — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 406 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abaid Ullah Khan and Qurban Sadiq Ikram, JJ |
| Parties | another — Appellants Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED, CLOCK TOWER, FAISALABAD — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 406 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 406 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abaid Ullah Khan and Qurban Sadiq Ikram, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 406 (MLD) (another — Appellants Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED, CLOCK TOWER, FAISALABAD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Manzoor-ul-Haq Gilani for Appellants.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 15th March, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
S.12--Application for amendment of memorandum of appeal- Application for amendment of memorandum of appeal, filed after about six years of institution of appeal was dismissed. (b) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979) --Ss.6, 7 & 12--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, R.3-- Suit for recovery of loan-- Application for leave to defend suit--Where articles pledged by borrower with Bank, admittedly were in possession Of Bank, Trial Court should not have insisted on deposit of entire disputed amount in Court as condition for grant of leave to defend suit--Order of Trial Court for deposit of entire suit money while goods of borrowers were still in custody of Bank, being arbitrary and unfair was set aside by Appellate Court and case remanded for hearing and decision according to law.
Judgment & Decree
ABAID ULLAH KHAN, J.--The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, which are not in dispute, may be shortly stated. The appellant, National Bank of Pakistan, extended loan facility of Rs.7,00,000 to Messrs National Rice Mills, Okara, respondent 1, against the pledge of the latter's goods, namely, rice and paddy, which the appellant took possession of. Subsequently Messrs Rice Milling Corporation 'of Pakistan, respondent 2, got hold of the stocks of rice and paddy which respondent 1 had pledged with the appellant. The suit brought by the appellant against the respondents for recovery of the outstanding amount of loan was dismissed by the learned Special Court (Banking), Lahore, on the ground that the appellant was not in a position to restore the pledged goods to respondent 1.
2. Admittedly, respondent 2 could not be called a borrower nor the appellant could be termed its creditor. Therefore, the appellants/suit against respondent 2 in the Special Court (Banking) was no competent.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant concedes that as the appellant is not in a position to return the pledged goods to respondent 1, 'it cannot claim the recovery of loan from the latter. In the circumstances the dismissal of the suit recorded by the learned trial Court is in order. The appeal fails and is dismissed. The appellant may seek its remedy, if it is available under law, for recovering the value of the pledged goods taken over by respondent
2. As the respondents have not chosen to contest the appeal there will be no order as to costs. H.B.T./N-24/L Appeal dismissed.