2013 PLP 218 (CLD)
Mst. NASREEN FATIMA — Appellant Versus The BANK OF PUNJAB through Manager — Respondent
| Citation | 2013 PLP 218 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. NASREEN FATIMA — Appellant Versus The BANK OF PUNJAB through Manager — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 218 (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 2013 PLP 218 (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: 2013 PLP 218 (CLD) (Mst. NASREEN FATIMA — Appellant Versus The BANK OF PUNJAB through Manager — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Saleem Iqbal for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 22(6)
Suit for recovery was decreed ex parte against the defendants
Banking Court, during execution proceedings, passed an order which was impugned by the defendants
Contention of the defendants was that they had already made an application under S.12(2), C.P.C. for setting aside ex parte decree which was still pending and that until said application was decided, execution proceedings should not be undertaken
Impugned order was interlocutory in nature, causing no prejudice at all to the defendant; which even otherwise could not be assailed in view of S.22(6) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
Appeal, being incompetent, was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MEHMOOD MAQBOOL BAJWA, J.
The order dated 4th of April, 2012 recorded by learned Judge Banking Court-III, Multan whereby after perusal of report of Tehsildar which was marked, show-cause notice was issued to the Tehsildar requiring him to appear in person has been called in question by the appellant.
2. Heard. Learned counsel for the appellant maintains that the respondent- Bank instituted the suit for recovery against the appellant as well as other persons in which ex parte judgment and decree was granted by the learned Banking Court on 20-9-2010. Contends that after getting knowledge regarding the ex parte judgment and decree, an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree was made at the instance of the appellant which is still sub judice before the learned executing Court but the execution proceedings have been initiated. Maintains that till the decision of the application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree, execution proceedings should not have been taken by the learned trial Court. Submits that the appellant being a judgment-debtor questioned her signatures/thumb mark, therefore, it was the duty of the learned trial Court to get comparison of the questioned signatures/thumb mark. Reliance has been placed on Mst. AKHTAR BEGUM v. MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. (2009 SCMR 264). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-bank contended that the order assailed before this court is an interlocutory in nature and as such the appeal is not maintainable in view of bar contained in section 22(6) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. A
3. Perusal of the order dated 4-4-2012 shows that on the date Ghulam Shabbir Wasil Baqi Nawees appeared who submitted report at the instance of Tehsildar which was placed on record but in view of the report of Tehsildar, the learned Executing Court in its wisdom issued shows-cause notice to the Tehsildar requiring his personal appearance. Admittedly, the order impugned before this Court is interlocutory in nature causing no prejudice at all to the appellant which even otherwise cannot be assailed in view of section 22(6) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001). A
4. Dictum laid down in "Mst. AKHTAR BEGUM" (Supra) thought cannot be questioned but can not advance plea of appellant keeping in view the relief sought for assailing the vires of order dated 4th of April, 2012.
5. Appeal in view of above state of facts and law being incompetent is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. KMZ/N-45/L Appeal dismissed.