CLD 2007

2007 PLP 163 (CLD)

Sheikh RIAZ ALI — Appellant Versus Messrs NIB (NDLC-IFIC) through Branch Office and 5 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
R.F.A. No.366 of 2004, decided on 6h November, 2006.
Honorable Judges
Mian Saqib Nisar and Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2007 PLP 163 (CLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Mian Saqib Nisar and Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan, JJ
Parties Sheikh RIAZ ALI — Appellant Versus Messrs NIB (NDLC-IFIC) through Branch Office and 5 others — Respondents
Primary Law Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 163 (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 2007 PLP 163 (CLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar and Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 163 (CLD) (Sheikh RIAZ ALI — Appellant Versus Messrs NIB (NDLC-IFIC) through Branch Office and 5 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)

Representation

  • Syed Waqar Hussain Naqvi for Appellant.
  • Muhammad Azeem Malik for Respondent No.1.

Headnotes / Summary

Ss. 9 & 22

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I, R.10

Suit for recovery of finance

Impleading of party--Appellant moved application under O.I, R.10, C.P.C. to be impleaded as a party to the suit and had alleged that he was the real owner in possession of land in respect of which respondent had created a mortgage; and that respondent by fraud and forgery had fabricated and manufactured sale-deed of land alleged to have been executed in his favour by appellant--Application of appellant for impleading him as party, was dismissed by Banking Court and constitutional petition filed by appellant against dismissal order was pending adjudication

Banking Court having passed decree in favour of Bank and against respondents, appellant in said changed circumstances filed appeal against judgment and decree of Banking Court and also challenged order of Banking Court, whereby his application for impleading him as party was dismissed

Bank had raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of said appeal contending that appellant as an aggrieved party had also availed appropriate remedy of filing objections under S.47, C.P.C. before Banking Court/Executing Court and said objections had been entertained by the Court, which were pending in which stay order had also been granted in favour of appellant, restraining sale of property in auction in execution of decree in favour of Bank

Contention of respondent was that both remedies could not be availed by appellant--Appellant, in circumstances did not press his appeal, however, he had stated that during pendency of his suit, auction of disputed property be stayed

On objections of appellant, Banking/Executing Court had taken cognizance of the matter and had granted stay order to appellant

If any order adverse to interest of appellant was passed, such order could be challenged by him before appropriate forum in proper proceedings

Stay order, however could not be granted to appellant in the present appeal which was dismissed as withdrawn by the appellant.

Judgment & Decree

The respondent No.1/bank brought a suit for the recovery of "finance", against respondents Nos.2 to

6. It is the case of the bank, that for the finance availed by respondent No.2, the respondent 4, has created a mortgage of his immovable property comprising of land measuring 5 Kanals and 15 Marlas, situated at Garol Ghatti, Band Road. Hadbast Mouza Baghbanpura, Lahore, through memorandum of deposit of titled deed and a token registered mortgage deed; the appellant moved an application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C., to be impleaded as a party to the suit, stating that he in fact is the real owner in possession of the aforesaid land; respondent No.4, by fraud and forgery has fabricated and manufactured the sale-deed of the land alleged to have been executed in his favour by the appellant and therefore, the appellant is a necessary party to the suit as his property is involved in the matter; the application was contested by the respondents and has been dismissed by the learned Banking Court vide order, dated 24-5-2004; the appellant challenged this order through Writ Petition No.10244 of 2004, which was admitted to regular hearing and was yet pending, when the Banking Court has passed a decree in favour of respondent No.1 and against respondents Nos.2 to 6, thus in the changed circumstances, the appellant has brought this appeal against the said judgment and decree as also challenged the order, dated 24-5-2004, through which his application for the impleadment was dismissed and has withdrawn the writ petition.

2. Another relevant fact of the case is that on 29-10-2003, the appellant had also filed a suit for the cancellation of the sale-deed in favour of the respondent No.4, on the basis of which the mortgage has been created by the said respondent in favour of the bank, in which the respondent/bank has also been impleaded as a party. In the suit, the appellant filed an application for the grant of temporary injunction, seeking restraint against the defendants, including the bank from alienating the said property in any manner, whatsoever, and it has been conceded by the learned counsel for the bank before this Court, today, that an injunctive order, dated 28-6-2004, was passed by the civil Court, through which, the respondent-Bank was put under restraint from alienating the property and such order having not been challenged by the bank and has attained the finality.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1, at the very outset has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of this appeal. It is submitted by him that the appellant as an aggrieved party, has also availed the appropriate remedy of filing the objections under the provisions of section 47, C.P.C., before the Banking Court/Executing Court and such objections have been entertained by the Court, are yet pending, in which the stay order has also been granted in favour of the appellant, restraining sale of the property in auction in execution of the decree in favour of the respondent-Bank. Therefore, it is submitted that both the remedies cannot be availed by the appellant. In the light of the above objection and conceding thereto, the learned counsel for the appellant, does not press this appeal; however, states that during the pendency of the above mentioned civil suit filed by the appellant and till the matter is not finally decided, auction of the said property be stayed. Admittedly, upon the objections of the appellant, the Banking/ Executing Court, has taken cognizance of the matter and has granted the stay order to appellant. Thus if any order adverse to the interest of the appellant is passed, such order may be challenged by him before the appropriate forum in proper proceedings. But the stay order cannot be granted to the appellant in this appeal, which is being dismissed as withdrawn. Upon the oral request of the appellant's counsel, as no material proceedings have been taken in the matter, the office is directed to prepare a certificate for the refund of the court-fee affixed upon the memo. of appeal. H.B.T./R-65/L Order accordingly.