2005 PLP 1527 (CLD)
CITIBANK, N.A. through Branch Manager — Appellant Versus MAJID NAEEM — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1527 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | CITIBANK, N.A. through Branch Manager — Appellant Versus MAJID NAEEM — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1527 (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 2005 PLP 1527 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1527 (CLD) (CITIBANK, N.A. through Branch Manager — Appellant Versus MAJID NAEEM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhary for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9 & 22
Application for passing consent decree in terms of agreement and to modify decree passed by Trial Court
Bank in its application had prayed that consent decree could be passed in terms of agreement by modifying decree passed by Trial Court
Submission of Bank was that instead of dismissal of appeal, consent decree in terms of settlement agreement be passed
Upon filing of copy of settlement agreement, appeal was dismissed as no live issues were left to be decided
Applicant's case was not that some issues in appeal were still undecided, after dismissal of appeal, that too in presence of counsel of parties, no consent decree as prayed ,for, could be passed when no appeal was pending before High Court as it stood dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Application in hand has been filed on behalf of Citibank with the following prayer:-- "In the light of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that the present application may kindly be accepted and a consent decree may kindly be passed in terms of the agreement dated 24-12-2004 by modifying the decree passed by the trial Court." The application has been resisted on behalf of the respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that instead of dismissal of the appeal, the consent decree in terms of the settlement agreement be passed. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents states that the copy of the settlement agreement was placed on record of the learned Executing Court and in view thereof, the execution petition has been adjourned sine die.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon the examination of the available record, we find that the appeal (R.F.A. No.817 of 2002) wherein the present application has been filed, was fixed before this Court on 28-3-2005, on which date both the learned counsel placed on record the copy of settlement agreement dated 24-12-2004 stating that the subject-matter of the appeal stood amicably settled between the parties, whereupon this Court dismissed the appeal having become infructuous.
4. As noted above upon filing of the copy of the settlement agreement, which still exists on record, the appeal was dismissed, as no live issues were left to be decided. It is not the case of the applicant that some issues in the appeal are still undecided. After the dismissal of the appeal, that too in the presence of both the learned counsel, and in view of the fact that the copy of the settlement agreement had already been placed on record of this Court and the executing Court as well, no consent decree can be passed. Additionally, at present no appeal is pending before this Court, as it stood dismissed on 28-3-2005.
5. Application in hand is misconceived, hence dismissed. H.B.T./C-88/L Application dismissed.