2005 PLP 1567 (CLD)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others — Appellants Versus BOLAN BANK LIMITED — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1567 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others — Appellants Versus BOLAN BANK LIMITED — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1567 (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 1567 (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 1567 (CLD) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others — Appellants Versus BOLAN BANK LIMITED — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Bashir Ahmad for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9, 19 & 22
Suit by Bank was decreed and decree-holder had sought execution of decree by arrest and detention of appellants/ judgment-debtors as they did not appear despite they were served through registered post and it was reported that two judgment-debtors were living in Karachi and one of them had died and two judgment-debtors were employed abroad
Appeal to the extent of deceased judgment-debtor had become infructuous-Appeal was not pressed to the extent of two judgment-debtors who were working abroad
Only one of the judgment-debtors, who was Chief Executive of Company, was available who would appear before Executing Court in response to show-cause notice
Decree-holder had no objection provided said judgment-debtor would furnish adequate security to the satisfaction of Executing Court for his appearance
Appeal was disposed of with consent of parties in terms that said judgment-debtor would appear before Executing Court within specified period, and would submit security to the satisfaction of Executing Court for his appearance when required.
Judgment & Decree
SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.
The respondent-decree-holder sought execution of the decree by arrest and detention of the appellants. The learned Executing Court issued a show-cause notice on 29-7-2000 which was not served. According to the record the show-cause notice was served through registered post acknowledgement due on 3-11-2001 but the appellants did not appear and accordingly arrest warrants of the appellants were issued. It was reported that out of the four judgment-debtors, Ghulam Abbas and Faiz Ahmad appellants 2 and 3 were living in Karachi while Riaz Ahmad and Muhammad Iqbal appellants 1 and 4, had gone abroad. Accordingly, fresh warrants were issued on 12-4-2002. This order has been assailed in this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that Faiz Ahmad appellant No.3 has died. Therefore, to his extent this appeal has become infructuous. As far as appellants 1 and 4 are concerned, the learned counsel submits that they are employed in Saudi Arabia and, therefore, this appeal is not pressed to the extent of the said appellants. He further submits that Ghulam Abbas, former Chief Executive of the Company, appellant No.2, is available and he will appear before the learned Executing Court in response to the show-cause notice. The learned counsel for the decree-holder-Bank has no objection provided appellant No.2 furnishes adequate security to the satisfaction of the learned Executing Court for his appearance before the said learned Court till the application of the respondent for arrest and detention of the judgment-debtors in execution of the decree is decided.
3. This appeal is accordingly disposed of with the consent of the parties, in terms that appellant No.2 shall appear before the learned Executing Court within a period of 15 days, submit security to the satisfaction of the learned Executing Court for his appearance and thereafter the application of the decree holder-Bank for execution of the decree by arrest and detention of the judgment-debtors shall be decided in accordance with law. In case the undertaking being given before this Court is complied with by the appellant, the warrants issued against him shall not be executed.
5. As far as appellants Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are concerned, this appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./M-2382/L Order accordingly.