1986 PLP 1366 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD MANZOOR — Petitioner Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1366 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MANZOOR — Petitioner Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1366 (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 1986 PLP 1366 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1366 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD MANZOOR — Petitioner Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ali Ahmad Awan, Advocate Supreme Court with Maqbul A. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- M. Yaqoob Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with M.Z. Khalil Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 18th February, 1986.
- Ali Ahmad Awan, Advocate Supreme Court with Maqbul A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M. Yaqoob Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with M.Z. Khalil Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 27-9-1978 in R.S.A. 743 of 1978).
O. XXXVII--Suit for recovery--Suit decreed against petitioner but petitioner contending that suit filed against him was barred by time--All three Courts below repelling contention of petitioner--Loan advanced to petitioner by Bank was subsequently renewed by him by executing a mortgage deed in favour of Bank--Petitioner later confirmed amount outstanding against him by signing a Balance Account Slip--Such documents in existence extending period of limitation before its expiry- Petitioner failing to produce any evidence to show that Balance Account Slip did not bear his signature--Finding of Courts below maintained in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑‑Facts giving rise to this petition are that respondent National Bank of Pakistan filed a suit against the petitioner Muhammad Manzoor for the recovery of Rs.24,899.60. The suit was decreed by the Senior Civil Judge, Jhang. The petitioner filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court which was heard by the learned Additional District Judge, who dismissed the same per order dated 13‑7‑1978. Thereafter the petitioner filed R .S. A. in the Lahore High Court which was dismissed in limine by a learned Single Judge vide the impugned order dated 27‑9‑1978.
2. Learned counsel's contention is that the suit of the respondent was time‑barred explaining that the amount in dispute was made up of the loan of Rs.20,000 advanced to the petitioner and interest amounting to Rs.4,899.60 which had accrued thereon. The said loan was obtained by the petitioner on 14‑10‑1964 but the suit was brought on 28‑7‑1969, hence, the suit was filed after a period of three years and therefore, it was time‑barred. All the three Courts below have repelled this contention of the learned counsel. We are unable to agree with this contention as well. Initially, the loan was advanced on 14‑10‑1964 but subsequently the petitioner renewed the loan on 31‑12‑1966 by executing a mortgage deed in favour of the respondent. Later, on 31‑12‑1969 he confirmed the amount outstanding against him by signing the Balance Account Slip. The petitioner admitted having signed the said slip but subsequently denied., He has however failed to produce any evidence to show that the Balance Account Slip did not bear his signature. It was, therefore, rightly held by the Courts below that he had signed the mortgage deed and the Balance Account Slip. These documents in existence, extend the period of limitation before its expiry. Agreeing with finding of the Courts below we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The petition has no merit and is, consequently dismissed. M. Y. H. Petition dismissed