2005 PLP 1643 (SCMR)
Messrs RASU FOOD INDUSTRIES and another — Petitioners Versus Messrs PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL LEASING COOPERATION LIMITED and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1643 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs RASU FOOD INDUSTRIES and another — Petitioners Versus Messrs PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL LEASING COOPERATION LIMITED and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1643 (SCMR)?
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 2005 PLP 1643 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1643 (SCMR) (Messrs RASU FOOD INDUSTRIES and another — Petitioners Versus Messrs PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL LEASING COOPERATION LIMITED and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iftikhar Ullah Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmud-ul-Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Ali Akbar Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th July, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment dated 16-5-2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in F.A.O. No.281 of 2001).
Ss. 9, 10, 19 & 22
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, R.90
Suit for recovery of Bank loan
Suit filed by Bank against petitioner having been decreed, Bank resorted to execution proceedings for the recovery of decretal amount and during process of said proceedings, orders for auction of property owned by petitioners were passed
Application filed by petitioners under O. XXI, R.90, C.P.C. against auction order was finally dismissed by High Court vide impugned order
Impugned order was conditional order as under said order petitioners were required to deposit decretal amount before Banking Court within a period of one month, but they failed to do so, with the result that sale of house in favour of auction-purchaser was confirmed and certificate of sale was issued and since then property had changed three hands
As process of selling property to satisfy decree had gone a long way, no relief could be granted to petitioners.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.
This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 16th May, 2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby F.A.O. filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by means of impugned judgment.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs.6,78,556 before the Banking Court against the petitioners as they failed to return the amount of the Bank. Petitioners were given an opportunity of hearing and the Banking Court ultimately did not allow them permission to leave to defend the suit and passed a decree in favour of respondent-Bank. The Bank then resorted to execution proceedings for the recovery of the decretal amount and during the process of these proceedings the orders for auction of the property owned by the petitioners were passed. Petitioners, challenged the orders of auction of property before the trial Court through an application under Order XXI, rule 90, C.P.C. However, the said application was ultimately dismissed by the trial Court. F.A.O. filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by means of impugned judgment. As such instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed.
3. Learned counsel contended that now the petitioners are ready to deposit 15% of the auction amount, in view of the compromise, arrived at between the parties, in pursuance whereof Writ Petition No.21894 of 1999 was disposed of vide order dated 10th April, 2001.
4. The contention so raised by the learned counsel has no substance. As a careful perusal of order of disposing of writ petition vide order dated 10th April, 2001, clearly indicates that it was conditional order as petitioners were required to deposit decretal amount before the Banking Court within a period of one month, but admittedly they failed to do so, with the result that sale of the house in favour of auction-purchaser was confirmed and certificate of sale was issued. It is important to note that by the time the property has changed three hands as respondent No.2 sold the house to respondent No.3 from whom respondent No.4 has purchased the same. As the process of selling the property to satisfy the decree has gone much ahead, therefore, no relief at this stage can be granted to the petitioners.
5. No other point was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Thus, for the foregoing reasons petition is dismissed and leave declined. Leave to appeal declined. H.B.T./R-26/S Petition dismissed. ***