2009 PLP 614 (CLD)
Dr. GHULAM HUSSAIN — Appellant Versus ORIX LEASING and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 614 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Dr. GHULAM HUSSAIN — Appellant Versus ORIX LEASING and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 614 (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 2009 PLP 614 (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: 2009 PLP 614 (CLD) (Dr. GHULAM HUSSAIN — Appellant Versus ORIX LEASING and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhtar Javed for Respondent No.1.
Headnotes / Summary
SS. 9, 10 & 22
Suit for recovery of loan--Application for leave to defend suit
Plaintiff had contended that defendant obtained finance by way of lease through personal guarantee of another defendant
Application for leave to defend the suit was dismissed and suit was decreed
Contention of defendant was that he had never signed a guarantee in favour of the borrower
Said assertion of defendant had been controverted by the counsel for the plaintiff--Alleged guarantee and indemnity which bore the signatures of the defendant had been admitted by him; however his, case was that such signatures had been obtained from him as a witness
Separate part of said document, was specifically identified due to two signatures of witnesses appearing thereat, while signatures admitted by defendant were on place identified for executant viz. the guarantor
Defendant who was in medical profession, was not an illiterate person
No defence worthy of trial having been put forward, application for leave to defend was rightly dismissed and the Trial Court had rightly decreed the suit
No case for interference and invalidation having been made out, appeal was dismissed by High Court.
Judgment & Decree
SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13-5-2008 whereby the learned Judge Banking Court Sargodha dismissed the application of the appellant for leave to defend the suit and decreed the suit against him.
2. Facts in brief necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery against the appellant and respondent No.2. It was contended in the plaint that respondent No.2 has obtained finance by way of lease and such finance had been secured through inter alia personal guarantee of the appellant. Default was alleged and on the basis whereof suit for recovery was filed. Application for leave to defend the suit was filed by the appellant which was dismissed and consequently the suit' was decreed vide judgment and decree impugned dated 13-5-2008.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had never signed a guarantee in favour of respondent No.1 and in view of his denial, leave should have been granted and the matter decided after recording the evidence.
4. Said assertion has been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant did not deny his signature on the document/guarantee in question. In fact, it is the case of the appellant that the appellant was only asked to witness the execution of one of the lease documents. Such is clearly stated in para 2 of the appeal.
6. We have examined the document in question i.e., the guarantee and indemnity. It bears the signatures of the appellant, which has been admitted. The only case put forward was that such signatures had been obtained as a witness. It has been noticed that there is a separate part of the document specifically identified for signature of witnesses and two signatures have appeared there at. While the signatures admitted by the appellant are on a place identified for the executants viz. the guarantor. The appellant is not an illiterate person and in fact he is stated to be a doctor by profession. In this view of the matter, no defence worthy of trial was put forward, hence, the application for leave to defend the suit was rightly dismissed and the trial Court rightly decreed the suit. No case for interference and invalidation thereof is made out. Dismissed accordingly. H.B.T./G-8/L Appeal dismissed.