2002 PLP 605 (CLD)
LTD. and 4 others‑‑‑ — Appellants Versus HABIB CREDIT AND EXCHANGE
| Citation | 2002 PLP 605 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Maulvi Anwarul Haq and Mian Hamid Farooq, JJ |
| Parties | LTD. and 4 others‑‑‑ — Appellants Versus HABIB CREDIT AND EXCHANGE |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 605 (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 2002 PLP 605 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq and Mian Hamid Farooq, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 605 (CLD) (LTD. and 4 others‑‑‑ — Appellants Versus HABIB CREDIT AND EXCHANGE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Imran Aziz Awan for Appellants.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.22‑‑‑Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.13‑‑‑Withdrawal of appeal on the basis of compromise‑‑--Prayer for refund of court fee paid on memorandum of appeal‑‑‑Appeal after having been admitted for regular hearing had, not been faced for hearing and opposite party had not put in appearance‑‑‑High Court allowed the prayer. Sh. Riaz‑ud‑Din v. Aqil‑ur‑Rehman Siddiqui PLD 1993 SC 76 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Sh. Riaz‑ud‑Din v. Aqil‑ur‑Rehman Siddiqui PLD 1993 SC 76 rel. Imran Aziz Awan for Appellants. C. M. No. 1 of 2002 Let the main R.F.A. be taken up. C.M. disposed of. Main R.F.A. No.332 of 1997 Presence as above. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the matter has been amicably settled with the respondent‑Bank and this regular first appeal is to be withdrawn. Prayer is allowed. The regular first appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
2. Learned counsel prays for the refund of court‑fee paid on the memorandum of appeal. His reliance is on judgment in case Sh. Riaz ‑ud‑Din v. Aqil‑ur‑Rehman Siddiqui (PLD 1993 SC 76). We find that although the appeal had been admitted to regular hearing yet it has not so far been fixed for hearing, in fact the opposite‑party has not so 'far put in appearance as well.
3. In view of the said dictum of the apex Court prayer is allowed. Office to issue refund certificate in the manner prescribed. S.A.K./H‑73/L Appeal dismissed.