2002 PLP 1422 (CLD)
SERFRAZ AHMAD MALIK ‑‑‑Appellant Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Branch Manager‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1422 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ |
| Parties | SERFRAZ AHMAD MALIK ‑‑‑Appellant Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Branch Manager‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1422 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1422 (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 1422 (CLD) (SERFRAZ AHMAD MALIK ‑‑‑Appellant Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Branch Manager‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Ahsan Bhone for Appellant.
- Mian Qamar‑uz‑Zaman for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 23rd April, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 9 & 10‑‑‑Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Ss. 9 & 10‑‑‑Suit against Bank‑‑ Dismissal of suit without application for leave to appear and defend‑‑‑Past and closed transaction‑ ‑‑Banking Court instead of asking the Bank to file application for leave to defend, dismissed the suit for the reason that the transaction subject‑matter of the suit was past and closed‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Banking Court was required to ask the Bank to file an application seeking leave to appear and defend the suit‑‑‑Dismissal of suit by the Banking Court was not consistent with the provisions of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, or by Financial institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001‑‑‑Plaint, in the present case, disclosed a cause of action and the same could riot be rejected‑‑ Banking Court could have considered the application for leave to defend and then decided the same‑‑‑Judgment and decree passed by the Banking Court was set aside and the case was remanded for decision in accordance with law‑‑ Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.‑‑‑This appeal impugns the judgment and decree, dated 18‑7‑2001 passed by the learned Banking Court, Gujranwala.
2. Although we have heard both learned counsel at some length on merits, we do not wish to comment on the merits of the case, because we propose to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remand the case to the Banking Court.
3. For the purpose of this judgment, it is sufficient to say that appellant Sarfraz Ahmad filed a suit against the respondent‑Bank. This suit was filed under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997. In the circumstances, the Banking Court was required to call upon the defendant Bank to file an application seeking leave to appear and defend. In the present case, instead of asking the Bank to file an application seeking leave to appear and defend the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed on the short ground that it related to some past and closed transaction.
4. The course of action adopted by the learned Banking Court is not consistent with the law prescribed by the aforesaid statute or by the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance. 2001. The plaint filed by the plaintiff did disclose a cause of action. In the circumstances, the plaint, could not have been rejected. At best what could have been done was to consider the application, if any filed by the defendant‑Bank and then to' decide the same.
5. In the above circumstances, the impugned judgment and decree, dated 18‑7‑2001 are set aside. The suit of the plaintiff shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Banking Court, which shall proceed to decide the same on the lines indicated above in accordance with the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The record shall be sent back to the learned Banking Court forthwith. This appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Q.M.H./M.A.K./S‑427/L Appeal allowed.