2014 PLP 403 (CLD)
HABIB METROPOLITAN BANK LTD. — Petitioner Versus ZAB RICE (PVT.) LTD. and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2014 PLP 403 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HABIB METROPOLITAN BANK LTD. — Petitioner Versus ZAB RICE (PVT.) LTD. and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 403 (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 2014 PLP 403 (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: 2014 PLP 403 (CLD) (HABIB METROPOLITAN BANK LTD. — Petitioner Versus ZAB RICE (PVT.) LTD. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahoor Ali Nasir Tagha for Petitioner.
- M. Usman Sahi for Respondents.
- 4. Through this C.M. the petitioner has prayed that execution proceedings may be restarted and fresh Court Auctioneer may kindly be appointed and notice under Order XXI, Rule 66, C.P.C. be issued. As the decree has been revived Mr. Zaheer Ahmed Saeed Advocate High Court, 7-Turner Road Lahore (0321-4147955) and Mr. Masroor Mirza, Advocate High Court, Qadri Chambers 8 Turner Road Lahore (0333-4282181) are appointed Court Auctioneers for conducting the auction of property. Learned Court Auctioneer will submit draft of notice under Order XXI, Rule 66, C.P.C. for approval of this Court within 15 days. The decree holder bank will pay Rs.2,00,000 to the Court Auctioneers as their professional fee which will be equally shared by the learned Court Auctioneers. The decree holder will arrange proclamation in the newspaper and will also incur the expenses as to printing of wall posters etc. Petition stands disposed of.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9 & 19(3)
Ex parte decree passed by Banking Court, setting aside of
Scope
Contumacious default by defendant
Effect
Recovery suit was decreed ex parte against defendants
Defendants filed application before High Court to set aside ex parte decree
High Court allowed said application and directed defendants to deposit Rs. 400,000 with decree-holder/Bank for setting aside ex parte decree
Defendants deposited a cheque of Rs.400,000 with the Bank, however the same was dishonoured due to lack of funds
Plea of defendants that on the day of presentment of cheque by the Bank, one of defendants' customers withdrew Rs. 30,000 from the account, and as such the cheque was dishonoured; that cheque had been issued to the bank bona fidely, therefore more time might be allowed to the defendants to deposit Rs. 400,000
Defendants were given concession by the High Court directing them to deposit Rs.400,000, being the expenses of auction as the plaintiff/decree-holder Bank had incurred the said expenses towards payment of court auctioneer fee and other charges etc.
Suit filed by Bank was for recovery of Rs. 58,482,336.57 and if defendants were unable to deposit Rs.400,000, how would they pay the decretal amount
Intention of defendants was not bona fide and they were trying to linger on disposal of recovery suit
Defendants on the present date of hearing were again not in a position to deposit amount of Rs. 400,000, and as such default on their part was contumacious
High Court set aside the order whereby ex parte decree was set aside subject to depositing of Rs. 400,000 with the Bank, and resultantly ex parte decree against defendants was revived
High Court appointed Court Auctioneers for conducting auction of property
Application was dismissed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
C.M. NO.379-B of 2012 MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.
The respondent/plaintiff suit was decreed ex parte vide judgment dated 28-9-2010. The defendants/petitioners filed an application for setting aside the decree dated 29-9-2010 vide C.M. No.326 of 2012. The said application was allowed on 29-3-2012 subject to deposit of Rs.4,00,000 with the decree holder Bank upto 17-5-2012. The defendants filed C.M. No.362-B of 2012 stating that respondent/Bank is not accepting the amount of Rs.4,00,000 in terms of order of this Court dated 29-3-2012, the Court directed the decree holder Bank to receive the amount, then the petitioners/defendants deposited a cheque of Rs.4,00,000 with the decree holder/Bank on 17-5-2012, but when the decree holder presented the cheque for collection on 18-5-2012, the cheque was bounced.
2. The petitioner then filed C.M.N.379-B/2012 under section 148, C.P.C. for extension of time praying that their cheque was dishonoured due to paucity of funds as on the day of presentment of cheque by the respondent the amount of Rs.30,000 was withdrawn by one of the customers of petitioner and as such respondents' cheque was dishonoured. Learned counsel submits that they have issued the cheque of Rs.400,000 bonafidely but due to above said reason, the cheque in dispute was not encashed. In fact the cheque was dishonoured only due to withdrawal of Rs.30,000 on 18-5-2012 and time may be allowed to deposit Rs.4,00,000.
3. Admittedly the petitioners were given concession by the Court directing to deposit Rs.4,00,000 being the expenses of auction as the plaintiff/decree holder bank has incurred the said expenses towards payment of court auctioneer fee and other charges etc. The suit is for recovery of Rs.58,482.336.57 and if petitioners/defendants are unable to pay Rs.4,00,000 how they will pay the decretal amount. The intention of petitioners is not bona fide, they are trying to linger on the, disposal of suit. Today again they are not in a position to deposit the amount of Rs.4,00,000 and as such the default on the part of defendants/petitioners is contumacious. In these circumstances the order dated 29-3-2012 is withdrawn. C.M. No.379-B of 2012 stands dismissed. C.M. No.383-B of 2012
4. Through this C.M. the petitioner has prayed that execution proceedings may be restarted and fresh Court Auctioneer may kindly be appointed and notice under Order XXI, Rule 66, C.P.C. be issued. As the decree has been revived Mr. Zaheer Ahmed Saeed Advocate High Court, 7-Turner Road Lahore (0321-4147955) and Mr. Masroor Mirza, Advocate High Court, Qadri Chambers 8 Turner Road Lahore (0333-4282181) are appointed Court Auctioneers for conducting the auction of property. Learned Court Auctioneer will submit draft of notice under Order XXI, Rule 66, C.P.C. for approval of this Court within 15 days. The decree holder bank will pay Rs.2,00,000 to the Court Auctioneers as their professional fee which will be equally shared by the learned Court Auctioneers. The decree holder will arrange proclamation in the newspaper and will also incur the expenses as to printing of wall posters etc. Petition stands disposed of.
5. Office is directed to fix main execution petition on 18-10-2012 for the report of Court Auctioneers. MWA/H-2/L Order accordingly.