2010 PLP 972 (CLD)
FAZAL-E-RABBI — Appellant Versus JUDGE BANKING COURT and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 972 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FAZAL-E-RABBI — Appellant Versus JUDGE BANKING COURT and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 972 (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 2010 PLP 972 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 972 (CLD) (FAZAL-E-RABBI — Appellant Versus JUDGE BANKING COURT and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maqsood Ahmad for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S.12
Application for setting aside ex parte decree
Banking Court 'dismissed application of defendant on the ground of being barred by limitation
Section 12 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 provided that where the defendant was served through citation the point of limitation of 21-days for filing application under the said provision commenced from the date of knowledge
Impugned order, in the present case, showed that there was no finding as to the date of knowledge
Such order was not sustainable
High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the case to Banking Court to decide the application of defendant, afresh in accordance with law
Appeal was allowed.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal is directed against the order dated 9-9-2004 whereby an application filed under section 12 of the Financial Institution (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 by the present appellant was dismissed.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the lis at hand are; that the respondent/bank filed a suit for recovery, inter alia, against the present appellant and other respondents. The summons/notices were issued in accordance with the provisions of the said Ordinance. Apparently, the service was not effected personally upon the appellant and the only mode of service available on the file was by way of citation in the press. The suit was decreed and execution proceedings commenced. Whereafter, the present appellant filed an application under section 12 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances), Ordinance, 2001 which has been dismissed by the Banking Court on the ground of being barred by limitation by way of the impugned order dated 9-9-2004.
3. Perusal of section 12 whereunder the application was filed clearly reveals that where the defendant is served through citation the point of limitation of 21 days for filing an application under the said provision commences from the date of knowledge. A perusal of the impugned orders reveals that there is no finding as to the date of knowledge. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is not sustainable and is set aside. The case is remanded to banking Court to decide the application afresh after hearing both the parties. Appeal accepted. Case remanded. The application filed by the respondent is deemed to be pending and will be decided by the Banking Court in accordance with law. M.U.Y./F-30/L Case remanded.