2003 PLP 1599 (CLD)
RAHEEL IKHLAS‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Messrs CITIBANK N.A.‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1599 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ |
| Parties | RAHEEL IKHLAS‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Messrs CITIBANK N.A.‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1599 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1599 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1599 (CLD) (RAHEEL IKHLAS‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Messrs CITIBANK N.A.‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing; 2nd July, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 21‑3‑2002 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in F.A.O. No.408 of 2001). ‑‑‑--S. 12‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Ex parte decree, setting aside of‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction of Supreme Court‑‑‑Factual inquiry‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Despite service of notice in ordinary course as well as by publication, the borrower did not appear before Banking Court and instead moved application under S.12 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997‑‑‑Application was dismissed and ex parte decree was maintained‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Order passed by High Court was just, fair and equitable‑‑‑Supreme 'Court observed that' in case the borrower felt that, he was not liable to pay the decretal amount or that certain amount credited by him had not been adjusted by the Bank, he might agitate the same before Executing Court as Supreme Court could not embark upon an inquiry into facts in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑--S. 12‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Ex parte decree, setting aside of‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction of Supreme Court‑‑‑Factual inquiry‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Despite service of notice in ordinary course as well as by publication, the borrower did not appear before Banking Court and instead moved application under S.12 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997‑‑‑Application was dismissed and ex parte decree was maintained‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Order passed by High Court was just, fair and equitable‑‑‑Supreme 'Court observed that' in case the borrower felt that, he was not liable to pay the decretal amount or that certain amount credited by him had not been adjusted by the Bank, he might agitate the same before Executing Court as Supreme Court could not embark upon an inquiry into facts in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing; 2nd July, 2002. RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.‑‑‑Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the High Court order, dated 21‑3‑2002 upholding the order of the Banking Court, Lahore whereby petitioner's application under section 12 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1979) was rejected.
2. The petitioner being a credit card holder to the limit of Rs.2,45,000 was proceeded against before the Banking Court where an ex parte decree in the sum of Rs.1,73,007 was passed against him on 29‑5‑2001. The petitioner despite service of notice in the ordinary course as well as by publication did not appear before the trial Court and instead moved an application under section 12 of Act XV of 1997 on the main premise that he had not been afforded opportunity of hearing and was condemned unheard. Petitioner's plea did not find favour with the learned High Court which has been dismissed through the impugned order, leading to this petition.
3. We have heard learned Advocate‑or‑Record for the petitioner and gone through the entire record as well as the impugned judgment. On the face of record there appears to be no merit in this petition and the order passed by the High Court is just, fair and equitable in the circumstances of the case. In case the petitioner feels that he is not liable to, pay the decretal amount or that certain amount credited by him has not been adjusted by the Bank, he may agitate the same before the Executing Court as this Court cannot embark upon an inquiry into facts in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction.
4. Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. M.H./R‑58/S Petition dismissed.