2002 PLP 1462 (CLD)
Mst. SALOOMI RANA ‑‑‑Appellant Versus FIRST LEASING CORPORATION LTD. Through Adnan Naseer and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1462 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. SALOOMI RANA ‑‑‑Appellant Versus FIRST LEASING CORPORATION LTD. Through Adnan Naseer and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1462 (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 2002 PLP 1462 (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 1462 (CLD) (Mst. SALOOMI RANA ‑‑‑Appellant Versus FIRST LEASING CORPORATION LTD. Through Adnan Naseer and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sahibzada Riaz Anwar for Appellant.
- Date of hearing : 4th June, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 2(c), 9 & 22‑‑‑Recovery of Bank loan‑‑‑Relationship of borrower or customer‑‑‑Allegation against appellant was that she was in possession of certain items which allegedly were leased by the plaintiff to the borrower‑‑‑Decree on such basis for repayment of finance was passed by the Banking Court against the borrower and the appellant‑‑‑Contention of appellant was that as she was neither a customer nor a borrower. Therefore, decree passed against her was liable to be set aside‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Banking Court could not have passed a decree against the appellant who was neither a borrower nor guarantor as defined in Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001‑‑‑At the most the plaintiff would be entitled to take possession of the items in execution proceedings, if it was determined by the Executing Court that the appellant was, in fact, in possession of those items‑‑‑Judgment and decree passed by the Banking Court was set aside‑‑‑Appeal was allowed accordingly. Respondent No. 1: Ex parte.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.‑‑‑This appeal impugns the judgment and decree, dated 17‑10‑1998. passed by the learned Banking Court No. II, Lahore.
2. The facts of this case are straightforward. First Leasing Corporation Limited, respondent No. 1, filed a suit against the appellant and 3 others for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,05.41,
852. Appellant Mst. Saloomi Rana, who was impleaded as defendant No.3, filed an application seeking leave to appear and defend. According to the averments in the said application, it was contended that she had not obtained any finance from the respondent First Leasing Corporation and as such was not liable in respect of any amount payable to the said Company. Even in the plaint, we find, no financing document or guarantee has been imputed to the appellant Mst. Saloomi Rana. The only allegation against her was that she is in possession of a car, one high tech. Camera and a Fax Machine which allegedly were leased by the respondent‑Company to Messrs Sipra Television System (Pvt.) Ltd., respondent No.2. On this basis it is clear that a decree for repayment of finance could not have been passed against the appellant. who was neither a borrower nor guarantor as defined in Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001.
3. At most the respondent Leasing Company would be entitled to take possession of the aforesaid items in execution proceedings, if it is determined by the executing Court that the appellant is, in fact, in possession of the said items. In view of the foregoing discussion, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree, dated 17‑10‑1998 is set aside to the extent of Mst. Saloomi Rana, appellant, only. The appeal is decided in the above terms. Q.M.H./M.AK./S‑340/L Appeal allowed.