2006 PLP 79 (CLD)
Syed ASAD ABBAS — Appellant Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN through Branch Manager and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 79 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Syed ASAD ABBAS — Appellant Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN through Branch Manager and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 79 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 79 (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: 2006 PLP 79 (CLD) (Syed ASAD ABBAS — Appellant Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN through Branch Manager and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Naveed Anwaar for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.9 & 10
Non-filing of counter affidavit
Application for leave to appear and defend the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution, after the same had been argued thus the suit was decreed ex parte in favour of bank
Plea raised by defendant was that his application was supported by affidavit which had not been controverted
Even if leave application was to be dismissed for non-prosecution, yet while decreeing the suit of bank, Banking Court ought to have applied its mind to the facts of the case and adjudged, if the plaint was supported by statement of accounts and such documents on the basis of which suit of bank was justified
Claim of defendant in leave application and affidavit in that behalf had not been controverted
Banking Court, in a mechanical and sketchy manner had passed the decree, which did not reflect application of a judicial mind
Ex parte decree passed by Banking Court was set aside and the case was remanded to Banking Court for deciding the leave application afresh
Appeal was allowed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
Respondent No.1 brought a suit for the recovery against the appellant as also respondents Nos.2 and
3. The respondent filed an application for leave to appear and defend which, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, was fixed for 19-6-2003 and was argued. The case was, however, adjourned for 26-2-2004, on which date, the learned Judge of the Banking Court dismissed the application for non-prosecution and was pleased to pass an ex parte decree against the appellant. It is submitted that the leave application was argued on 19-6-2003 and in support thereof the learned counsel who made his submission has filed an affidavit, which has not been controverted by the respondents through a counter-affidavit. We have perused the judgment and find that even if the leave application was to be dismissed for non-prosecution, yet while decreeing the suit of the respondent the Court ought to have applied its mind to the facts of the case and adjudged. If the plaint was supported by the statement of accounts and such documents on the basis of which the plaintiffs suit was justified. But the Court in a mechanical and sketchy manner has passed the decree which does not reflect the application of P' a judicial mind and thus it cannot be sustained. Besides, for the reasons that the appellants claim on the leave application and the affidavit of the counsel in this behalf has rot been controverted. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree is set aside to the extent of the appellant. The case is- remanded to the Court below for deciding the leave application of the appellant which shall be deemed pending. Parties are directed to appear before the Court on 17-1-2005, on which date or some other date to which the case is adjourned by the Court, the appellant shall argue his leave application, orally as also shall place on record his written submission, enabling the Court to decide the matter. M.H./A-654/L Case remanded.