2023 PLP 1086 (CLD)
ASGHAR ALI — Appellant Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Branch Manager — Respondent
| Citation | 2023 PLP 1086 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ASGHAR ALI — Appellant Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN 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 2023 PLP 1086 (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 2023 PLP 1086 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2023 PLP 1086 (CLD) (ASGHAR ALI — Appellant Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Branch Manager — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Khurram Hashmi for Respondent/Bank.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9 & 10
Suit for recovery of bank loan
Scope
Bank filed a suit for recovery of certain amount against the appellant
Appellant filed the application for leave to defend stating that the amount shown to have been disbursed to him was incorrect and that he had repaid the due amount, which was not reflected in the statement of account
Banking Court did not consider the defense taken by the appellant to be bona fide and consequently passed decree against him
Judgment passed by the Banking Court had not dealt with the defense raised by the appellant in any meaningful way
Appellant in his application for leave to defend had substantially complied with the requirements of S. 10 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
Banking Court, however, had mechanically stated in the order that the appellant had not fulfilled the requirements of S. 10 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
Appeal was allowed and the Banking Court was directed to expeditiously decide the application for leave to defend.
Judgment & Decree
C.M. No.1327 of 2022 This is an application seeking restoration of main appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 09.05.2022. Reply to this application has not been filed by respondent bank. For the reasons stated in this application, it is allowed. Office shall fix the main appeal for today. MAIN CASE: This regular first appeal is filed under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (the Ordinance) for calling into question the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2017 passed by the banking court.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent bank filed a suit against the appellant seeking recovery of Rs. 1,518,803/- due under a finance availed under the Prime Minister's Youth Business Scheme for purchase of dairy and livestock. The appellant filed the application for leave to defend stating that the amount shown to have been disbursed to him was incorrect and that he has repaid an amount of Rs.1,111,400/- which was not reflected in the statement of account. The banking court did not consider the defense taken by the appellant to be bona fide and consequently passed decree against him in the sum of Rs.1,355,798/-.
4. The learned counsel submits that the payment of amount in the sum of Rs.1,111,400/- is duly substantiated by the receipts which are appended with this appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent bank, on the other hand, submits that the amounts paid by the appellant, if any, after the filing of the suit can be adjusted at the time of execution of the decree.
5. We have perused the judgment passed by the banking court which does not deal with the defense raised by the appellant in any meaningful way. The appellant in paragraphs Nos.10 and 11 of the application for leave to defend had substantially complied with the requirements of section 10 of the Ordinance. The banking court, however, mechanically stated in the order that the appellant did not fulfill the requirement of section 10 of the Ordinance.
6. In this view of the matter, judgment and decree dated 10.06.2021 passed by the banking court is not sustainable in law and facts of the case. This appeal is accordingly allowed and judgment and decree 10.06.2021 is set aside with the result that the application for leave to defend filed by the appellant before the banking court which shall decide the same afresh within a period of one month from the date of appearance of the parties. In order to streamline the process, the parties are directed to appear before the banking court on 17.10.2022. SA/A-42/L Case remanded.