2022 PLP 238 (CLD)
ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LIMITED through Branch Manager — Appellant Versus SAMI ULLAH — Respondent
| Citation | 2022 PLP 238 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LIMITED through Branch Manager — Appellant Versus SAMI ULLAH — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 238 (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 238 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar 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 238 (CLD) (ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LIMITED through Branch Manager — Appellant Versus SAMI ULLAH — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 19 & 22
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 181
Appellant Bank itself purchased suit property during auction in execution of decree passed against respondent/borrower
After confirmation of auction proceedings, Sale Certificate was issued in favour of appellant Bank on 28.1.2002, whereby sale had become absolute
Application for possession of acquired property was preferred by appellant Bank on 13.1.2020
Application filed by appellant Bank was dismissed as time barred
Appellant Bank was required to file such application within three years from date of issuance of Sale Certificate but they preferred to file such application after over seventeen and a half years and that was how Banking Court held the application barred by time
High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Banking Court as such finding did not suffer from any illegality
Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
QAISER RASHID KHAN, C.J.
Through the appeal in hand, the appellant has called in question the judgment and order dated 8.3.2021 of the learned Judge Banking Court-I, Peshawar, whereby the application of the appellant-bank for the delivery of possession of the acquired property has been dismissed.
2. As per facts gathered from the record, the appellant-bank filed a recovery suit against the respondent before the learned Banking Court, Peshawar, which was decreed and the execution proceedings were set in motion within the meaning of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. During the execution proceedings, the mortgaged property of the respondent-judgment debtor measuring 32 kanal and 3 marlas, situated at Mouza Qilla Shah Baig, Tehsil and District, Charsadda was put to auction and the same was purchased by the appellant-bank. Thereafter, the auction proceedings were confirmed and a Sale Certificate was accordingly issued in favour of the appellant-bank on 28.1.2002. On 13.01.2020, the appellant-bank filed an application for possession of the purchased property, which was dismissed being time barred by the learned Judge, Banking Court-I, Peshawar through the impugned judgment and order dated 8.3.2021. Hence, the instant appeal.
3. Arguments heard and the available record perused.
4. Since the application of the appellant-bank for possession of the acquired property has been dismissed by the learned Banking Court mainly on the ground of limitation and Article 180 of the Limitation Act, 1908 deals with the same, therefore, it would be more apt to reproduce the same as under:- Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run
180. By a purchaser of immovable property at a sale in execution of a decree for delivery of possession. Three years When the sale becomes absolute.
5. The record divulges that after confirmation of the auction proceedings, the Sale Certificate was issued in favour of the appellant-bank on 28.1.2002, whereby the sale became absolute. However, the application for the possession of the acquired property has been preferred by the appellant-bank on 13.01.2020.
6. In view of the above explicit provision of law, the appellant-bank was required to file such application within three years from the date of issuance of Sale Certificate but they preferred to file such application, after over seventeen and a half years and that is how, the application was held to be time barred by the learned Banking Court through the impugned findings. Such findings do not suffer from any illegality, so as to in turn call for the indulgence of this court through the present appeal.
7. Accordingly, this appeal along with C.M. being bereft of merits stand dismissed in limine. MH/278/P Appeal dismissed.