2003 PLP 1585 (CLD)
Rana MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JAVED IQBAL SIDDIQUI and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1585 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Rana MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JAVED IQBAL SIDDIQUI and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1585 (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 2003 PLP 1585 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1585 (CLD) (Rana MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JAVED IQBAL SIDDIQUI and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Rashid, Advocate. Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 1st July, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 22‑3‑2002 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in W.P. No.4787 of 2002). ‑‑‑‑S. 19‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑‑Recovery of Bank Loan‑‑‑Dispute with regard to deposit of amount with Bank‑‑‑Contention of the borrower was that he had paid a sum of Rs. 50, 000 to the Bank and the same had not been accounted or‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Proper course for the borrower was to satisfy the decree or to submit relevant objection before the Executing Court instead of harassing the other party by filing successive Constitutional, petitions which were completely misconceived‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 19‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑‑Recovery of Bank Loan‑‑‑Dispute with regard to deposit of amount with Bank‑‑‑Contention of the borrower was that he had paid a sum of Rs. 50, 000 to the Bank and the same had not been accounted or‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Proper course for the borrower was to satisfy the decree or to submit relevant objection before the Executing Court instead of harassing the other party by filing successive Constitutional, petitions which were completely misconceived‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. S.M. Rashid, Advocate. Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 1st July, 2002. RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.‑‑‑Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court order, dated 22‑7‑2002 Court dismissing his Writ Petition No.4787 of 2002 directed assailing an order of the Banking Court No. 1, Gujranwala.
2. There is a money decree passed in a suit by A.D.B.P. for the recovery of Rs.2,85,157 against the petitioner. He has statedly paid a sum, of Rs.1,97,678 leaving a balance of Rs.87,
539. Instead of facing execution proceedings or satisfying the decree, he has been invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court on the pretext or the other. Pursuant to the direction given in the earlier petition he approached the Banking Court but his application was dismissed. He filed second writ petition before the High Court which leas been dismissed with the observation that the petitioner is trying to involve the respondent‑Bank and its functionaries into frivolous litigation.
3. We are least impressed with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he had, paid a sum of Rs.50,000 to the Bank or that it has not been accounted for. Proper course for the petitioner is to satisfy the decree or to submit relevant objection before the executing Court instead of harassing the other party by filing successive writ petitions which are completely misconceived. The petition is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. M.H./M‑564/S Petition dismissed.