1999 PLP 532 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD FAROOQUE AZAM‑‑ Petitioner Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1999 PLP 532 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ali Muhammad Baloch and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD FAROOQUE AZAM‑‑ Petitioner Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 532 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 532 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ali Muhammad Baloch and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 532 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD FAROOQUE AZAM‑‑ Petitioner Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M Jamil Ahmed for Appellant.
- Zubair Qureshi for Respondent
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑O. XI, Rr.12 & 21‑‑‑Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3‑‑‑Intra‑Court appeal‑‑‑Only an application under O.XI, R.12, C. P. C. was moved by the appellant‑‑ High Court had passed an order on such application‑‑‑ Intra‑Court appeal, maintainability of‑‑‑Where only such an application was moved and no order was passed, it was not enough for invoking the provisions of O.XI, R.21, C.P.C.‑‑‑Intra Court appeal being without force was dismissed in limine. Messrs United Bank Ltd. v. Yousuf Haji Noor Muhammad Dhadhi 1988 SCMR 82 rel.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑O. XI, Rr.12 & 21‑‑‑Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3‑‑‑Intra‑Court appeal‑‑‑Only an application under O.XI, R.12, C. P. C. was moved by the appellant‑‑ High Court had passed an order on such application‑‑‑ Intra‑Court appeal, maintainability of‑‑‑Where only such an application was moved and no order was passed, it was not enough for invoking the provisions of O.XI, R.21, C.P.C.‑‑‑Intra Court appeal being without force was dismissed in limine. Messrs United Bank Ltd. v. Yousuf Haji Noor Muhammad Dhadhi 1988 SCMR 82 rel. M Jamil Ahmed for Appellant. Zubair Qureshi for Respondent This appeal has been filed against an order passed by learned Single Judge whereby the application moved under Order 11, Rule 21 was dismissed. The contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant is that an application under Order 11, Rule 12 was moved by the plaintiff and that the defendant had violated the order of the Court inasmuch as no affidavit in reply/compliance of the orders of the Court was produced and, thus, discovery of the documents was not made. We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant as well as Mr. Zubair Qureshi, learned counsel for the respondent on pre‑admission notice. We called upon the learned counsel for the appellant to show us as to which order of the Court passed on the application under Order 11, Rule 12 was not complied with by the defendant. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show us any such order passed by the Court. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on the case of M/s. United Bank Ltd. v. Yousuf Haji Noor Muhammad Dhadhi reported in 1988 SCMR page 82 wherein it has been laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court that unless there is an order passed by the Court, it cannot be said that there is violation of that. Under such circumstances, Order 11, Rule 21 could not be invoked. Clearly, the provisions of Order 11, rule 21 are in the shape of penalty, and such provisions have to be applied strictly. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that only an application under Order 11, Rule 12 was moved. We do not think that was enough for invoking the provisions of Order 11, Rule 21, C.P.C. We have also considered and gone through the contents of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, we do not find any forceful reason to take an exceptions with the said order. Finding no force in the appeal, we do not find it necessary to be admitted to regular hearing. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal in limine. Appeal dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑432/K