2003 PLP 1610 (CLD)
Messrs MAROOF KNITWEAR (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive and 8 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED‑‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1610 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri and Munir A. Sheikh, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs MAROOF KNITWEAR (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive and 8 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED‑‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1610 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1610 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri and Munir A. Sheikh, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1610 (CLD) (Messrs MAROOF KNITWEAR (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive and 8 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED‑‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sahibzada Anwar Hamid, Advocate Supreme‑Court for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 24th May, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 25‑4‑2000 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in C.O.S. No.26 of 1999). ‑‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, R.17‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Amendment in application for leave to defend the suit‑‑Amendment sought to be made in the application was declined by Banking Court as well as by High Court‑‑‑Plea raised by the borrower was that the amendment in pleadings could be sought at any stage‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Court was vested with the power to allow amendment in its discretion in pleadings at any stage of proceedings but it did not bind the Court to allow the amendment in all cases once application was moved‑‑ Discretion exercised by the Court for not allowing the amendment did not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness‑‑‑Supreme Court allowed the borrower to use material available on record of the suit in support of and to substantiate the grounds raised in the original application for grant of leave to appear and defend the suit‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
Sahibzada Anwar Hamid, Advocate Supreme‑Court for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 24th May, 2000. MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment/order, dated, 25‑4‑2000 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore by which application moved by the petitioners seeking amendment in their application for leave to appear and defend the suit has been rejected.
2. Learned Judge in Chamber of the High Court on considering the circumstances came to the conclusion that it was not a fit case for allowing the application in his discretion.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that amendment in the pleadings according to established law could be allowed at any stage of the proceedings and even in proceedings in the final appeal against the judgment of the trial Court, therefore, the amendment sought should have been allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. There is no cavil with the proposition that the Court in its discretion is vested with the power to allow amendment in its discretion in the pleadings at any stage of the proceedings but it does not bind the Court to allow the amendment in all the cases once an application is moved. The discretion exercised by the Court for not allowing the amendment in. this case has not been shown to have suffered from any illegality or arbitrariness, therefore, we find no merits in this petition.
5. Needless to add that the petitioners shall be at liberty to use material available on the record of the suit in support of and to substantiate the grounds raised in the original application for grant of leave to appear and defend the suit.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused. M.H./M‑792/S Petition dismissed.