2002 PLP 986 (CLD)
CHAUDHRY SPRAY CENTRE through Sole Proprietor Ch. Saifullah and 5 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN through Attorney/ Manager‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 986 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ |
| Parties | CHAUDHRY SPRAY CENTRE through Sole Proprietor Ch. Saifullah and 5 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN through Attorney/ Manager‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 986 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 986 (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 986 (CLD) (CHAUDHRY SPRAY CENTRE through Sole Proprietor Ch. Saifullah and 5 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN through Attorney/ Manager‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Khalid Sajjad Khan for Appellants.
- Mian Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 10th April, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.10(12)‑‑‑Application for leave to appear and defend‑‑‑Failure to file application under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001‑‑‑Suit for recovery of Bank loan was filed against the defendants who filed application for leave to appear and defend the suit under S.10 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997‑‑After filing of the application Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, was promulgated and the defendants did not file new application under the said law‑‑‑Banking Court without considering the contents of the application already filed by the defendants decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Banking Court should have considered the contents of the earlier application and only if the Court had come to the conclusion that the same did not comply with the provisions of S.10(12) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, only then the Court could have dismissed the same‑‑‑Judgment and decree passed by the Banking Court was set aside and the case was remanded for decision afresh in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.‑‑‑This appeal impugns the judgment and decree, dated 13‑12‑2001. The facts of this case are simple. The appellants filed an application seeking leave to appear and defend under the provisions of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997. Thereafter, the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 was promulgated. Under section 10(12) of the said Ordinance, the appellants were required to file an amended application seeking leave to appear and defend. This was not done by the appellants.
2. The impugned judgment was passed by the learned Banking Court on the sole ground that an application under section 10(12) had not been filed. We find that this short ground is not legally tenable. The appellants, as noted above, had earlier filed an application under the Act of 1997. The learned Banking Court should have considered the contents of that earlier application and only if it had come to the conclusion that the same did not comply with the provisions of section 10(12), could it had dismissed the same.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent‑Bank states that the said exercise can be done in this first appeal also. This no doubt is true. However, if we decide the matter and hold against the appellants, the appellants will be deprived of a right of appeal in the case.
4. In the foregoing circumstances, we would set aside the impugned judgment and decree, dated 13‑12‑2001 and remand the case to the learned Banking Court for decision afresh in line with the conclusions noted above. It should do the needful within sixty days. Since both the parties are represented, they are directed to appear before the learned Banking Court‑I, Faisalabad, on 22‑4‑2002. Q.M.H./M.A.K./C‑158/L Case remanded.