2001 PLP 1762 (MLD)
Messrs ALI ENTERPRISES and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1762 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Zahid Qurban Alavi and Mushir Alam, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs ALI ENTERPRISES and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 1762 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 1762 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Zahid Qurban Alavi and Mushir Alam, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 1762 (MLD) (Messrs ALI ENTERPRISES and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Saalim Salam Ansari for Appellants.
- Tasawar Ali Hashini for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss.39, 42 & 54‑‑‑Suit for declaration, permanent injunction, recovery of damages etc.‑‑‑Damages‑‑‑Proof of, a pre‑condition‑‑‑Damages claimed by the plaintiff having not been proved, same could not be claimed and the suit would fail.
Judgment & Decree
ZAHID QURBAN ALAVI, J.‑‑‑In this appeal the learned counsel has challenged the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The suit was filed before the original civil jurisdiction of this Court for declaration, permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, cancellation of personal guarantees and for recovery of damages for Rs.100 Million. The learned Single Judge has given a detailed judgment and has examined all aspects of the case before coming to a conclusion that since damages have not been proved, therefore, they cannot be claimed and the suit would fail. He has also observed that another suit was pending which is Suit No.588 of 1997. therefore, the amounts, if any, should have been asked for and clarified in that suit. The other suit was also disposed of against which an appeal has been filed which is First Appeal No. 100 of 2000 which has been admitted for regular hearing. We find no justification to entertain this appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine alongwith pending applications. H. B. T./A‑170/K Appeal dismissed.