2002 PLP 1787 (SCMR)
AMJAD ALI and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Messrs M.C.B. and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1787 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | AMJAD ALI and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Messrs M.C.B. and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1787 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1787 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1787 (SCMR) (AMJAD ALI and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Messrs M.C.B. and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Maqbul Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and C.M. Lateef, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.595‑L of 2002).
- M.D. Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 601‑L of 2002).
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th February, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 19‑10‑2000 passed in F.A.Os. Nos. 102 and 103 of 2000) . Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)‑‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss.12 & 21‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑ Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XIII, R.1‑‑‑Petitions for leave to appeal barred by 425 days ‑‑‑Condonation‑‑‑ Banking Court on 7‑4‑2000 dismissed petitioners' applications for setting aside ex parte decree and their appeals were also dismissed on 19‑10‑2000‑‑ Petitioners alongwith petitions for leave to appeal filed applications for condonation of delay contending that criminal proceedings in respect of documents allegedly executed by them as guarantors, were pending against respondent‑loanee and a Bank Officer, who were granted bail against cash security of Rs.2,50,000 each, which they deposited and was adjusted by said Court against loan on 30‑7‑2001, therefore, petitioners felt satisfied that decretal amount had .already been paid to Bank and there was no need to file appeal ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Impugned judgment was passed on 19‑10‑2000, whereas judgment in criminal case was passed on 30‑7‑2001, which too was set aside by High Court, thus, said ground could not be held to be sufficient‑‑‑No explanation was given as to why petitioners against whom ex parte decree had been passed and their applications for setting aside the same had been dismissed, had not approached Supreme Court within period of limitation‑‑‑Applications for condonation of delay were dismissed, resultantly main petitions were also dismissed as barred by time and leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
Sh. Maqbul Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and C.M. Lateef, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.595‑L of 2002). M.D. Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 601‑L of 2002). Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th February, 2002. MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑By this common judgment we propose to decide both the petitions involving common question of law and facts.
2. The applications filed by the petitioners for setting aside ex parte decree of Banking Court which is against them as guarantors, were dismissed on 7‑4‑2000 against which they filed appeals' `before the Lahore High Court which have been dismissed through the impugned judgment, dated 19‑10‑2000, against which leave is sought.
3. Both these petitions, are barred by time by 425 days. The petitioners have filed, applications for condonation of delay in which it has been stated that criminal proceedings in respect of the documents allegedly executed by the petitioners as guarantors against respondent No.2 loanee and a Bank Officer' were pending in which the said respondent and the Bank Officer co‑accused person were granted bail against cash security amounting to Rs.2,50,000 each which they deposited, which was adjusted by the said Court against the loan on 30‑7‑2001, therefore, the petitioners felt satisfied that the decretal amount had already been paid to the Bank‑decree‑holders therefore, there was no need to file appeal.
4. We are afraid, if this ground can be held to be sufficient ground, for the judgment impugned in this case was passed on 19‑10‑2000 whereas the said adjustment was made on 30‑7‑2001 which too was set aside by the High Court therefore, there is no explanation as to why the petitioners against whom ex parte decree had been passed and their applications for setting aside the same had been dismissed, should not have approached this Court within period of limitation.
5. The applications for condonation of delay are hereby dismissed, as a consequence of which the main petitions are also dismissed as barred by time and leave refused. S.A.K./A‑207/SC Leave refused.