2004 PLP 810 (CLD)
RAJANA COTTON FACTORY (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive and 6 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus BANK OF PUNJAB through Manager‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 810 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ |
| Parties | RAJANA COTTON FACTORY (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive and 6 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus BANK OF PUNJAB through Manager‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 810 (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 2004 PLP 810 (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 810 (CLD) (RAJANA COTTON FACTORY (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive and 6 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus BANK OF PUNJAB through Manager‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zaheer‑ud‑Din Babar for Appellants.
- Khalid Pervaiz Khawaja for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 17 & 22‑‑‑Decree for an amount in excess of what was claimed by Bank in plaint‑‑‑Contention of Bank was that its claim was exactly the same, which had been decreed; and that defendants had played fraud and interpolated record by inserting except first page, remaining pages of plaint of another suit relating to same branch of Bank filed by same counsel of defendants‑‑‑Held: Holding of appropriate enquiry by Banking Court was must to ascertain, whether pages of plaint had been changed or not‑‑‑High Court directed Banking Court to submit report within specified period.
Judgment & Decree
First Appeal from Order No. 195 of 2002, decided on 21st January, 2003. ‑‑‑‑Ss. 17 & 22‑‑‑Decree for an amount in excess of what was claimed by Bank in plaint‑‑‑Contention of Bank was that its claim was exactly the same, which had been decreed; and that defendants had played fraud and interpolated record by inserting except first page, remaining pages of plaint of another suit relating to same branch of Bank filed by same counsel of defendants‑‑‑Held: Holding of appropriate enquiry by Banking Court was must to ascertain, whether pages of plaint had been changed or not‑‑‑High Court directed Banking Court to submit report within specified period. Zaheer‑ud‑Din Babar for Appellants. Khalid Pervaiz Khawaja for Respondent. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that according to the claim of the Bank as set out in the plaint a decree for an amount of Rs.21,72,107.00 was sought but the Banking Court without adverting to the claim in the plaint has granted a decree for an amount of Rs.1,07,98,396.00. In this manner the learned Banking Court has passed a decree for an amount in excess than the Bank has claimed in the plaint, thus is void. Confronted with the above learned counsel for the respondent‑Bank stated that the appellants in fact have played fraud and have interpolated the record by inserting except the first, the remaining pages of the plaint pertaining to another case of Iqbal Cloth House, which suit was filed by the same learned counsel and of the same branch of the Bank before the same Banking Court. The learned counsel for the respondent has asserted that the claim of the Bank was exactly the same which has been decreed.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we find necessary that the learned Banking Court must hold appropriate enquiry, for ascertaining whether the pages of the plaint in the present case have been changed. Let the original record of the case be sent to the learned Judge Banking Court who shall submit a report within a period of one month from the date of transmission of record. The original record shall also be returned to this Court alongwith the report. S.A.K./R‑214/L Order accordingly.