1989 PLP 1251 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD YAMIN & COMPANY‑‑Defendant/Petitioner Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1251 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Saleem Akhtar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YAMIN & COMPANY‑‑Defendant/Petitioner Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1251 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1251 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Saleem Akhtar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1251 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD YAMIN & COMPANY‑‑Defendant/Petitioner Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ali Murtaza Hussain for Petitioner
- Date of hearing: 4th November, 1987
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.12‑‑Ex parte decree‑‑Setting aside of‑‑Ex parte judgment and decree passed against petitioner on her counsel's statement about receiving no instructions‑‑Application for setting aside same moved‑ Contention of petitioner that she had not engaged any Advocate‑‑Court in view of the nature of controversy called that Advocate concerned who stated that the defendant /petitioner had duly engaged him and had signed the Vakalatnama which he had filed in Court‑‑Petition was dismissed, there being no reason to disbelieve the Advocate.
Judgment & Decree
Civil Miscellaneous Application in Judicial Miscellaneous No.8 of 1984, decided on 4th November, 1987. ‑‑‑S.12‑‑Ex parte decree‑‑Setting aside of‑‑Ex parte judgment and decree passed against petitioner on her counsel's statement about receiving no instructions‑‑Application for setting aside same moved‑ Contention of petitioner that she had not engaged any Advocate‑‑Court in view of the nature of controversy called that Advocate concerned who stated that the defendant /petitioner had duly engaged him and had signed the Vakalatnama which he had filed in Court‑‑Petition was dismissed, there being no reason to disbelieve the Advocate. Ali Murtaza Hussain for Petitioner Date of hearing: 4th November, 1987 The petitioner has filed this petition under section 12 C.P.C. for setting aside the judgment and decree passed against the order in Suit No.378/1977 filed by United Bank Limited. The main ground for seeking this relief is that without her knowledge and permission Mr. Khalid Athar (not Mr. Khalid Anwar as stated in the application) appeared and filed Vakalatnama. He did not put up any defence, nor informed the petitioner and pleaded no instruction due to which the case proceeded in her absence and the plaintiff managed to obtain the decree through fraud and misrepresentation. When she received a notice from the Civil Judge she being illiterate woman engaged Mr. Sibghatullah Hamid Advocate who informed him that the decree has already been passed. She stated that she has never given any document to the plaintiff No.l, she has not signed any document, mortgage or guarantee in respect of the loan advanced by the Bank. She is an illiterate lady and the documents have been managed. From the petition it seems that the main ground is that the petitioner/ defendant had not engaged .Mr. Khalid Athar as her Advocate. Considering the nature of controversy between the parties I called Mr. Khalid Athar, Advocate as a Court witness and the petitioner/defendant was also directed to be present in Court. The statement of Mr. Khalid Athar was recorded in which he clearly stated that he recognises the petitioner /defendant who was present in Court. He further stated that she had come with one person, engaged him and signed the Vakalatnama which he filed in Court. After that she did not turn tip and therefore, he reported no instruction. I have no reason to disbelieve the statement of Mr. Khalid Athsr. In the face of this evidence, the petitioner /defendant case falls to the ground. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. M.Z.S/U‑48/K Application dismissed