2005 PLP 1735 (CLD)
Haji MUHAMMAD KHADIM — Appellant Versus CITIBANK, N.A. through Branch Manager — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1735 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Haji MUHAMMAD KHADIM — Appellant Versus CITIBANK, N.A. through Branch Manager — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1735 (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 1735 (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 1735 (CLD) (Haji MUHAMMAD KHADIM — Appellant Versus CITIBANK, N.A. through Branch Manager — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ashar Elahi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9, 10, 15 & 22
Leave to appear and defend suit
Appellant, primarily aggrieved of action of Bank under S.15 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 putting property of appellant on sale, had instituted suit seeking declaration and in that suit Bank filed leave application which was -allowed and preliminary issue with regard to maintainability of suit was framed
Banking Court dilating on that, had rejected plaint of appellant, primarily on ground that appellant had earlier filed a suit of same nature in which relief of declaration sought in present matter was not claimed though same was available to him at that time and that second suit was barred under provisions of O.II, R.2, C.P.C.
Appellant had filed the present appeal
Bank had contended that it had also filed a suit against appellant for recovery of its dues and that Bank would not invoke and pursue provisions of S.15 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
Appellant, in such view of the matter had sought permission of Court to withdraw the suit
Said withdrawal was allowed and suit filed by appellant was dismissed as withdrawn accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
Primarily, being aggrieved of the action of the respondent-Bank under section 15 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, putting the property of the appellant on sale, the appellant had instituted the suit, seeking declaration, in which, the transaction/ certain agreements, were sought to be declared as null and void. In the suit, the respondent-Bank, filed leave application, which was allowed and the preliminary issue with regard to the maintainability of the suit was framed. The learned Banking Court, dilating on this, has rejected the plaint of the appellant, primarily on the ground that, earlier the appellant had filed a suit of the same nature, in which the relief of the declaration sought in the present matter, was not claimed, though available to him even at that time, therefore, the second suit was barred under the provisions of Order II, rule 2, C.P.C., hence this appeal.
2. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank states that the respondent-Bank has also filed a suit against the appellant for the recovery of its dues and that, the respondent-Bank shall not invoke and pursue the provisions of section 15 of the Ordinance, 2001. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the appellant, seeks permission of the Court to allow the withdrawal of the suit, as he states that, in the suit filed by the respondent-Bank, the appellant has already filed the leave application, in which, all the points raised in the suit, have been taken in defence and shall be the subject of determination in these proceedings.
3. In the light of the above, by disposing of this appeal, we allow the withdrawal of the suit by the appellant, which is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. It may however, be observed that, if the grounds set out in the plaint of the appellant are the part of the grounds of the leave application, the learned trial Court shall consider the pleas independent to any observation, made in the order under challenge before this Court. H.B.T./M-307/L Order accordingly.