2002 PLP 639 (CLD)
and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus BANK AI‑FALAH LIMITED, L.D.A. PLAZA,
| Citation | 2002 PLP 639 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ |
| Parties | and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus BANK AI‑FALAH LIMITED, L.D.A. PLAZA, |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 639 (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 2002 PLP 639 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 639 (CLD) (and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus BANK AI‑FALAH LIMITED, L.D.A. PLAZA,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Shahid Maqbool Sheikh for Appellants.
- Ashter Ausaf Ali for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 9,10,12 & 22‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. IX, R.6‑‑‑Ex pane decree, setting aside of‑‑‑Plea of one of the appellants (2) was that his address had. been incorrectly given in the plaint ‑‑Validity‑‑‑Sale deeds of mortgaged property tend title deeds of the said appellant (2) deposited with respondent- Bank showed that his address as given in such documents had not been mentioned in cause title of the plaint‑‑ Address of another appellant (1) i.e. borrouring company as mentioned in various finance documents had been correctly given in the plaint, thus, impugned decree would stand. and remain fully enforceable against the appellant‑company‑‑‑Other appellants (2) had not been properly, served before passing of ex pane decree‑‑‑High Court set aside impugned judgment and decree to the extent of appellant (2) who might, within, 21‑ days from date of judgment submit an application for leave to appear and defend the suit in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance.
Judgment & Decree
Regular First Appeal No.917 of 2001, decided on 6th February, 2002. Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)‑‑-- ‑‑‑‑Ss. 9,10,12 & 22‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. IX, R.6‑‑‑Ex pane decree, setting aside of‑‑‑Plea of one of the appellants (2) was that his address had. been incorrectly given in the plaint ‑‑Validity‑‑‑Sale deeds of mortgaged property tend title deeds of the said appellant (2) deposited with respondent- Bank showed that his address as given in such documents had not been mentioned in cause title of the plaint‑‑ Address of another appellant (1) i.e. borrouring company as mentioned in various finance documents had been correctly given in the plaint, thus, impugned decree would stand. and remain fully enforceable against the appellant‑company‑‑‑Other appellants (2) had not been properly, served before passing of ex pane decree‑‑‑High Court set aside impugned judgment and decree to the extent of appellant (2) who might, within, 21‑ days from date of judgment submit an application for leave to appear and defend the suit in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance. M. Shahid Maqbool Sheikh for Appellants. Ashter Ausaf Ali for Respondent. The short point on which this first appeal was admitted to regular hearing has been noted in the order, dated 24‑12‑2001. We have now seen the record. Sale‑deeds of the mortgaged property as well as the title deeds of appellant No. 2 deposited with the respondent‑Bank show that he was resident of 191‑A Ahmed Block, New Garden Town, Lahore and not House No.171‑A as has been mentioned in the head of the plaint. In these circumstances, it is evident that Tahir Hameed appellant No.2 was not properly served before the ex pane E decree impugned herein, dated 12‑8‑2000 was passed. In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree as against appellant No.
2. The said appellant No.2 may within 21 days from today submit an application seeking leave to appear and defend in accordance with the provisions of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances, Ordinance, 2001. The case is remanded to the learned Banking Court‑V, Lahore, which shall thereafter proceed to decide the matter as per law. The parties who are represented before us, are directed to appear before the learned Banking Court‑V on 28‑2‑2002.
2. It is clarified that the address of Apex International Associates appellant No. 1 was correctly given in the plaint as 13‑F, Raja. Centre, Gulberg‑III, Lahore. It is this very, address which has been mentioned in ‑the various finance documents filed with its plaint by the respondent‑Bank. As such the decree against Apex International Associates appellant No.1 shall stand and will remain fully enforceable against it. S.A.K./A‑413/L Order accordingly.