2002 PLP D (CLD)
MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD SHARIF‑‑‑Appellant Versus HABIB BANK LTD. through President and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP D (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja and |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD SHARIF‑‑‑Appellant Versus HABIB BANK LTD. through President and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP D (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP D (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP D (CLD) (MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD SHARIF‑‑‑Appellant Versus HABIB BANK LTD. through President and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Irshad Hussain Bhatti for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑S.12‑‑‑Financial 'Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.12‑Ex parte decree, setting aside of‑Service of process‑‑‑Appellant was not served under law‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Judgment and decree passed against the appellant was set aside by High Court‑‑‑High Court allowed the appellant to file application seeking leave to appear and defend within ten days‑Appeal was allowed accordingly. S.M. Nasem for the Appellant.
Judgment & Decree
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑S.12‑‑‑Financial 'Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.12‑Ex parte decree, setting aside of‑Service of process‑‑‑Appellant was not served under law‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Judgment and decree passed against the appellant was set aside by High Court‑‑‑High Court allowed the appellant to file application seeking leave to appear and defend within ten days‑Appeal was allowed accordingly. S.M. Nasem for the Appellant. Irshad Hussain Bhatti for Respondents. The grounds on which this appeal was admitted to regular hearing have been noted in the admitting order, dated 9‑5‑2002. The contents of the said order, therefore, need not be repeated here.
2. It is evident from the said grounds that it could not have been held that the appellant Muhammad Shahzad Sharif had either been actually served or could have been deemed to have been served under law. In this view of the matter the impugned order, dated 28‑3‑2002 is set aside. The application moved by the appellant seeking setting aside of the judgment and decree, dated 26‑8‑1998 to his extent only is allowed. The appellant shall within ten days from today be entitled to file an application seeking leave to appear and defend. Within a further period of 30 days thereafter, the learned Banking Court shall proceed to decide such application on merits.
3. This appeal is allowed in the above terms. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑1262/L