2008 PLP 443 (CLC)
FAHMEEDA AKHTAR and 5 others — Appellants Versus SMALL BUSINESS FINANCE CORPORATION through Regional Manager and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 443 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FAHMEEDA AKHTAR and 5 others — Appellants Versus SMALL BUSINESS FINANCE CORPORATION through Regional Manager and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 443 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 443 (CLC)?
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: 2008 PLP 443 (CLC) (FAHMEEDA AKHTAR and 5 others — Appellants Versus SMALL BUSINESS FINANCE CORPORATION through Regional Manager and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 3
Contention of counsel for appellants was that respondents were taking steps to recover amount of loan as arrears of land revenue from the appellants for which their late predecessor-in- interest had stood guarantee
Single Judge in the first instance had observed that no material steps had yet been taken to use coercive machinery; further, while advising the appellants, as they so insisted, to get the liability determined from the proper forum; respondents were directed to act strictly in accordance with law
Impugned judgment had caused no grievance whatsoever to appellants
Intra-Court appeal, was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
This I.C.A. proceeds against a judgment, dated 20-10-1999, passed by learned single Judge in Chamber, of this Court, whereby Writ `Petition No.6049 of 1991, filed by the appellant, was disposed of.
2. Learned counsel contends that the respondents were taking steps to recover amount of loan as arrears of land revenue from the petitioners for which their late predecessor-in-interest had stood guarantee.
3. We have examined the impugned judgment with the assistance of the learned counsel. We find that the learned Single Judge has, in the first instance, observed that no material steps had been taken to use coercive machinery till the said date of hearing of the writ petition and further while advising the petitioners, as they so insisted, to get the liability determined from the proper forum, the respondents were directed to act strictly in accordance with law. The impugned judgment has caused no grievance whatsoever to the appellant. This Intra-Court Appeal accordingly is dismissed. H.B.T./F-41/L Appeal dismissed.