1994 PLP 512 (SCMR)
M/s. KHALIL JUTE MILLS Ltd. through Manager‑‑‑Petitioner Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 512 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | M/s. KHALIL JUTE MILLS Ltd. through Manager‑‑‑Petitioner Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 512 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 512 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 512 (SCMR) (M/s. KHALIL JUTE MILLS Ltd. through Manager‑‑‑Petitioner Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, Advocate instructed by S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Malik Akhtar Hussain Awan, Advocate instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.l.
- Ali Sibtain Fazli, Advocate instructed by MA. Qureshi, Advocate‑on- Record for Respondent No‑3.
- Date of hearing: 21st November, 1993.
- 3. At hearing, fortunately, Malik Akhtar Hussain Awan assisted by Mr. Ali Sibtain Fazli, Advocates, were available for the respondents. The only particular of the property and its value that the petitioner was able to furnish was one appearing at page 98 of the Paper Book which shows the valuation of the mortgaged property to be Rs.11,01,860. There is no current valuation of the same nor is it the contention of the respondents that it has depreciated.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 27‑6‑1992 passed in Writ Petition No. 5533/92). ‑‑‑‑O.XXXVII, R.3‑‑‑Suit in summary jurisdiction for recovery of Bank loan‑‑‑ Leave to appear and defend suit was granted to defendant subject to his depositing amount in question in Court or with plaintiff‑Bank within one month‑‑‑Defendant unsuccessfully challenging such order in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court‑‑‑Validity of the condition imposed by Banking Court‑‑‑No current valuation of mortgaged property was available on record nor plaintiffs claimed that it had depreciated in value‑‑‑Petition for leave appeal was converted into appeal by Supreme Court and same was allowed to the extent that order of Banking Court was modified to the extent that defendant would be required to deposit cash of specified amount for defending the suit within twenty days from the date of order.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 27‑6‑1992 whereby a Constitution Petition filed by‑him was dismissed in limine, on the ground that the list of the property mortgaged to secure the recovery of the loan and its value was not furnished by the petitioner, therefore, the discretion exercised directing the petitioner to deposit the suit amount was justified.
2. The petitioner had indeed obtained a loan of Rs.8,00,000 with interest at the rate of 14% per annum and penal interest at the rate of 5% accumulated on it to make the sum due Rs.20,35,
897. This amount due was sought to be recovered through the Banking Court. The petitioner filed an application for leave to appear and defend the suit. The Banking Court came to the conclusion that "the interest of justice would be better served that defendant No.l is allowed to appear and defend the suit subject to his depositing the suit amount in this Court or with the plaintiff‑Bank within one month from today". This order was challenged in Constitutional jurisdiction wherein the relief was refused on the ground as hereunder:‑‑
"The property mortgaged to secure the recovery of the loan, was not furnished by the petitioner, therefore, the discretion exercised in the circumstances of the case, directing the petitioner to deposit the suit amount, in our view, was just, and calls for no interference in writ jurisdiction. Resultantly, this petition has no substance and is accordingly dismissed in limine."
3. At hearing, fortunately, Malik Akhtar Hussain Awan assisted by Mr. Ali Sibtain Fazli, Advocates, were available for the respondents. The only particular of the property and its value that the petitioner was able to furnish was one appearing at page 98 of the Paper Book which shows the valuation of the mortgaged property to be Rs.11,01,
860. There is no current valuation of the same nor is it the contention of the respondents that it has depreciated.
4. In the circumstances, we convert this petition into an appeal, allow the same to the extent that the order of the Banking Court shall be modified to the extent that the petitioner shall be required to deposit cash amounting to Rs.16,00,000 for defending the suit. This he shall deposit within twenty days from today. AA./K‑234/S Order accordingly.