2007 PLP 523 (CLD)
ABDUL SULTAN K. MERCHANT — Appellant Versus Messrs FIRST GENERAL LEASING MODARAABA and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 523 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL SULTAN K. MERCHANT — Appellant Versus Messrs FIRST GENERAL LEASING MODARAABA and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 523 (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 2007 PLP 523 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 523 (CLD) (ABDUL SULTAN K. MERCHANT — Appellant Versus Messrs FIRST GENERAL LEASING MODARAABA and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Irfan Haroon, for Respondent No.1.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9 & 22
Appeal though was filed within time, but copy of impugned judgment of Banking Court was not attached by appellant with memo. of appeal, and was filed after about 3 years from passing of impugned judgment and decree by the Banking Court
Appeal in circumstances, would be deemed to be barred by limitation which was accordingly dismissed along with pending application.
Judgment & Decree
SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN JAFFERY, J.
The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 26-2-2001 passed by Banking Court No.1 at Karachi in Suit No.5 of 2000. The appeal was presented on 8-5-2001, whereas the appellant applied for certified copy of the judgment on 26-2-2001 and received the copy on 19-4-2001. However, copy of the decree was not filed along with the memo. of appeal. Such copy was filed as late as on 21-4-2004 along with a statement of the said date. The copy of the decree reveals that the decree was prepared on 9-4--2001 and the appellant applied for a certified copy thereof on 2-4-2004. The same was delivered to the appellant on 6-4-2004. From the above, it is clear that the decree was prepared before filing of the appeal i.e. before 8-5-2001, however, the appellant obtained a copy thereof on 6-4-2004 and filed the same on 21-4-2004. Although the appeal was filed within the prescribed time, however, since it did not accompany a copy of the decree, which had already been prepared and such copy, as noted above, was filed on 21-4-2004, the appeal shall be deemed to be barred by limitation and is accordingly dismissed along with the pending application. H.B.T. /A-6/K Appeal dismissed.