2004 PLP 397 (CLD)
M. S. NAGI, ADVOCATE‑‑‑Appellant Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED, LAHORE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 397 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ |
| Parties | M. S. NAGI, ADVOCATE‑‑‑Appellant Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED, LAHORE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 397 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 397 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 397 (CLD) (M. S. NAGI, ADVOCATE‑‑‑Appellant Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED, LAHORE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Barjees Nagi for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 13th January, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.21‑‑‑Failure of Banking Court to decide issues of fact and law on basis of evidence on record and law applicable thereto‑‑‑Impugned judgment was absolutely sketchy and did not fulfil requirement of judicial adjudication‑‑‑High Court accepted appeal and remanded case for re‑writing of judgment after hearing the parties. Respondents: Ex parte.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S.21‑‑‑Failure of Banking Court to decide issues of fact and law on basis of evidence on record and law applicable thereto‑‑‑Impugned judgment was absolutely sketchy and did not fulfil requirement of judicial adjudication‑‑‑High Court accepted appeal and remanded case for re‑writing of judgment after hearing the parties. Barjees Nagi for Appellant. Respondents: Ex parte. Date of hearing: 13th January, 2003. MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.‑‑‑Respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery, inter alia against the appellant and respondents Nos.2 and 3, before the Civil Court in the year 1968; this suit after contest was dismissed by the Court on 1‑3‑1986; appeal filed, by ,respondent No. 1, succeeded on 11‑4‑1989 and it was held by the Court of Appeal that because of promulgation of Ordinance No.XXIX of 1979, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction, therefore, the matter was remanded to the Civil Court for its transfer to the Special Court constituted under Ordinance No.XXIX of 1979. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties as the issues had already been framed and evidence was completed before the Civil Court, thus on transfer of the matter to the Banking Court, the parties made statement to rely upon the same evidence. Anyhow, the learned Banking Court, after hearing the arguments, had allowed the suit through the judgment and decree dated 17‑3‑1999.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset, has pointed out that as there are number of factual issues, but the learned Court below has passed very sketchy judgment, which does not show proper application of mind to the evidence on the record. Such is the position with regard to the legal question as well.
3. Vide order dated 18‑2‑2002, respondents Nos.2 and 3 were proceeded ex parte and on the last date of hearing, representative of respondent No. 1 was present, who sought time to engage a counsel and the date was fixed in his presence; as today none represents respondent No. 1, therefore, the said respondent is also proceeded ex parte.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we find that the judgment of the Court below does not fulfil the requirement of judicial adjudication; the judgment is absolutely sketchy and the issue on facts and law have not been disposed of on the basis of the evidence on the record and the law applicable thereto resultantly, such judgment and decree cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside, therefore, by allowing this appeal, we remand the case to the learned Banking Court, for re‑writing of the judgment, after hearing the parties. S.A.K./M‑1692/L Case remanded.