1998SCMR2341 (PLP)
Raja MEHBOOB ELAH1 ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus UBL OF PAKISTAN through Manager and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998SCMR2341 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah, CJ, Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, JJ |
| Parties | Raja MEHBOOB ELAH1 ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus UBL OF PAKISTAN through Manager and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998SCMR2341 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998SCMR2341 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah, CJ, Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998SCMR2341 (PLP) (Raja MEHBOOB ELAH1 ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus UBL OF PAKISTAN through Manager and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th May, 1995.
- Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 12‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Suit for recovery of money in summary jurisdiction‑‑‑Suit decreed ex parte‑‑‑Application for setting aside ex parte decree dismissed‑‑‑High Court in appeal passed interim order allowing borrower to deposit specified amount within 2 months and to approach the Bank for remission of interest‑‑‑No objection was raised by counsel of Bank to passing of such order‑‑‑Appeal was ultimately dismissed on the ground that undertaking given to Court to deposit specified amount was not complied with‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Contention was raised that if borrower did not comply with direction how appeal of guarantor could be dismissed particularly when requirement contemplated under S. 12(5) of the Ordinance had been complied with‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether High Court had erred in passing order in question in view of contentions raised by guarantor.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J.
Respondent No.1 herein filed a suit for recovery of money under section 12 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 against respondent No.2, who is borrower, and the petitioner, who is guarantor. Since the defendants in the suit were not served initially, the suit was decreed ex parte and after acquiring knowledge during execution proceedings application was filed for setting aside ex parte decree, which was dismissed. A regular first appeal was filed in the High Court by both the judgment-debtors, who are brothers inter se, and interim order was passed on 19-9-1994 allowing borrower Raja Muhammad Ashraf to deposit Rs.100,000 within two months and to approach the bank for remission of interest. No objection was raised to this order by the counsel of the bank and for the further proceedings the hearing was adjourned. Finally the appeal was dismissed with costs vide the impugned order on the ground that undertaking given to the Court to deposit Rs.10,000 within two months was not complied with.
2. Contention is raised that if borrower did not comply with the direction how appeal of guarantor could be dismissed on the ground as stated above particularly when requirements contemplated under section 12(5) of the said P Ordinance had been complied with. Leave is granted to examine whether the High Court has erred in passing the order in view of the contention mentioned above. A.A./M-144/S Leave granted.