2005 PLP 1622 (CLD)
ABDUR RAUF and another — Appellants Versus HABIB BANK LTD. through Manager and 6 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1622 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUR RAUF and another — Appellants Versus HABIB BANK LTD. through Manager and 6 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1622 (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 1622 (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 1622 (CLD) (ABDUR RAUF and another — Appellants Versus HABIB BANK LTD. through Manager and 6 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Afzal Sindhu for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9, 12 & 22
Suit filed by Bank having been decreed ex parte, appellant: moved application under S.12 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 claiming that they were neither loanees, guarantors nor mortgagers because the property which was allegedly shown to have been mortgaged by them as sureties/mortgagers was not owned by appellants at the time, when alleged mortgage was claimed to have been created and that they had already sold mortgaged property and documents in that behalf were forged by respondent (attorney), who though earlier had the power of attorney, but because of sale of entire property by appellants such power of attorney stood cancelled by accomplishment of the job
Question whether appellants were owners of property in question and whether property could be mortgaged by respondent (attorney) required evidence, but Court below without framing of issues and holding trial in that behalf, had summarily rejected application which order was not in consonance with law
Impugned order was set aside and matter was remanded to the Court below for decision afresh upon application of appellants filed under S.12 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 by framing issues and recording of evidence.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
Respondent-Bank brought a suit for recovery inter alia against the appellants, which was ex parte decreed on 16-4-2002; the appellants thereafter, moved an application under section 12 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, claiming that they were neither the loanees, guarantors nor mortgagers because the property which is already shown to have been as mortgaged by them, as sureties/ mortgagers, was not owned by the appellants at the time; when the alleged mortgage is claimed to have been created, because they have already sold the mortgaged property and the documents in this behalf were forged by respondent No.2, who though earlier had the power of attorney, but because of the sale of the entire property by the appellant, such power of attorney by the accomplishment of the job, stood cancelled.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that this absolutely is incorrect; respondent No.3, had the valid power of attorney, which was intact at the time of creation of mortgage and the appellants were also the owners to the extent of 2 Marlas of the said property.
3. Be that as it may, this requires evidence, whether the appellants were the owners to the extent of 2 Marlas or otherwise, and therefore, the property on their behalf, could be mortgaged by respondent No.2, but learned Court below without framing of issues and holding trial in this behalf, has summarily rejected the application which order to our mind was not in consonance with law, resultantly, by allowing this appeal, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the Court below for decision afresh upon the application of the appellants under section 12 by framing of issues and recording of evidence. H. B.T. /A-1017/L Appeal allowed.