CLD 2006

2006CLD 1338 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE and another — Appellants Versus SMALL BUSINESS FINANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN through Manager and

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
N/A
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2006CLD 1338 (PLP)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members N/A
Parties MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE and another — Appellants Versus SMALL BUSINESS FINANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN through Manager and
Primary Law Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 200I)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006CLD 1338 (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 200I) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006CLD 1338 (PLP)?

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: 2006CLD 1338 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE and another — Appellants Versus SMALL BUSINESS FINANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN through Manager and). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 200I)

Representation

  • Sardar Muhammad Tariq Khan for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

Ss. 9, 10 & 22

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.54 & 55

Suit for permanent and mandatory injunction in Banking Court

Leave to defend suit

Rejection of plaint

Appeal against

On filing suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, respondent-Corporatim filed application for grant of leave to defend suit

Banking Court while hearing and deciding said application rejected the plaint-Contention of counsel of respondent-Corporation was that since appellants had obtained loan of Rs.3,00,000 out of which only some amount had been returned, appellants had no cause of action

Validity

Though loan worth Rs.3,00,000 was obtained by appellants from the Corporation, some of which was also returned, but coercive process for much higher amount was initiated against appellants and the guarantor, which pushed them to institute suit

Held, appellants would pay balance principal amount of loan within specified period and if so done, order passed by Banking Court rejecting plaint, would stand set aside; in that case, application filed by respondent-Corporation for leave to defend would stand accepted unconditionally, whereafter Banking Court would proceed to decide the suit in accordance with law.

Judgment & Decree

SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.

In the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction with consequential relief filed by the appellants, application for grant of leave to defend was filed by the respondent/corporation. While hearing and deciding the said application the learned Banking Court proceeded to reject the plaint on 10-5-2002 under Order VII, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which has been appealed against under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) ?Ordinance, 2001. The prime contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the plaint could not be rejected at this stage am-I in the manner it has been done. The learned counsel for the respondent/corporation points out that since the appellants had obtained loan of Rs.3,00,000 out of which only paltry sum was returned, he has no cause of action to that extent. Though loan worth Rs.3,00,000 was obtained by the appellants from the respondent/corporation, out of which some was paid also, yet coercive process for much higher amount was initiated against them (the borrower and the guarantor), which pushed them to institute the abovementioned suit. On consideration of the matter, we are inclined to dispose of this appeal in the manner that the appellants will pay the balance principal amount of loan within two months and if so done the order passed by the Banking Court rejecting the plaint will stand set aside. In that case, the application filed by the respondent/corporation for leave to defend will stand accepted unconditionally whereafter the Banking Court will proceed to decide the suit in accordance with law. The present appeal is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M-434/L????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????Order accordingly.