2022 PLP 1555 (CLD)
HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION through Branch Manager — Appellant Versus ABDUL SATTAR ANJUM — Respondent
| Citation | 2022 PLP 1555 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION through Branch Manager — Appellant Versus ABDUL SATTAR ANJUM — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 1555 (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 2022 PLP 1555 (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: 2022 PLP 1555 (CLD) (HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION through Branch Manager — Appellant Versus ABDUL SATTAR ANJUM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ishtiaq Ali for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 22
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 5 & 29
Scope
Period of limitation for filing an appeal has been provided in the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, itself, thus the provision of S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, is not applicable in view of S. 29(2)(b) of the Limitation Act, 1908
Application for condonation of delay in filing appeal was dismissed as being not maintainable along with the appeal.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal has been filed under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance, 2001 (Ordinance) against the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2016 passed by the learned Banking Court, Gujranwala, whereby the suit filed by the respondent was decreed.
2. Along with this appeal, application (C.M. No. 1 of 2016) for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (Act) has been filed. We would like to decide application for condonation of delay at first instance. C.M. No. 1/2016
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that the appeal could not be filed within time because the learned counsel of the appellant did not inform the appellant regarding the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2016. He further submits that the impugned judgment and decree being void the time is condonable.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the application for condonation of delay is not maintainable and further the entire outstanding amount of the appellant has been paid off and the charge documents have also been returned by the appellant.
5. Heard. Admittedly, the impugned judgment and decree was passed on 13.07.2016, the appellant applied for the certified copy on 11.08.2016 which was prepared and delivered on 21.09.2016 and there-after the appeal was filed on 21.10.2016. Under section 22 of the Ordinance the appeal against the judgment and decree could be filed within 30 days from the date of judgment and decree. However, in the present case even when the period consumed for obtaining certified copies is excluded, the appeal is barred by time for almost 28 days.
6. As the period of limitation has been prescribed by the Ordinance itself, the provision of Section 5 of the Act is not applicable in view of section 29(2)(b) of the Act. Reliance is placed on "Allah Dino and another v. Muhammad Shah and others" (2001 SCMR 286), "General Manager v. Mst. Sakina Bibi and others" (2012 CLD 1112), "Allied Bank Limited through Tariq Mehmood Sheikh SAM and Mujtaba Gillani AVP-SAM Branch Authorized Attorney v. Messrs Shahabad Textiles (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chief Executive and Director" (2012 CLC 817), "Messrs Friends International (Pvt.) Limited through Director and 2 others v. Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited through Manager and 5 others" (2004 CLD 817). In view of the above, the application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Act is no maintainable, therefore, same is dismissed. Main case
7. As application for condonation of delay has been dismissed being not maintainable, therefore, main appeal is also dismissed being barred by time. SA/H-26/L Appeal dismissed.