2010 PLP 335 (CLD)
SME BANK LIMITED through Manager and another — Appellants Versus RIAZ ALI — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 335 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SME BANK LIMITED through Manager and another — Appellants Versus RIAZ ALI — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 335 (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 335 (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: 2010 PLP 335 (CLD) (SME BANK LIMITED through Manager and another — Appellants Versus RIAZ ALI — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.9(5) & 22
Procedure-Disposal of the suit must be preceded by notices and hearing to the defendants
Both said statutory requirements having been discarded by the impugned order, same was set aside by High Court.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal impugns the terse an ad-interim order dated 9-4-2007 disposing of the suit by respondent No.1 for declaration and permanent injunction filed against the appellant bank. The impugned order directs that the bank shall proceed first against the principal-debtor and thereafter against the surety for the recovery of its dues. Notices have been issued repeatedly to the respondents who have not entered appearance in answer thereto. Respondent No.2 has already been proceeded against ex parte. Respondents Nos. 1 and 3 are proceeded against ex parte now.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant bank submits that the ex parte direction given by the learned Banking Court in the impugned order is violative of statutory law reflected in section 128 of the Contract Act, 1872 which has been reiterated by the Honourable Supreme Court in Rafique Hazquel Masih. v. Bank Alfalah Ltd. and others 2005 SCMR 72, to the effect that the liability of a surety is co-extensive with that of a principal-debtor. No condition can be imposed by a Court of the said statutory right of a claiment.
3. Be that as it may, under section 9(5) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, the disposal of the suit must be preceded by notices and hearing to the defendants. Both the statutory requirements have been discarded by the impugned order. It is accordingly, set aside and the appeal is allowed. M.H./S-282/L Appeal allowed.