1999CLC413 (PLP)
AZMAT RABBANI‑‑‑Appellant Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED, BANK SQUARE, FAISALABAD and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1999CLC413 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum and Saeed‑ur‑Rehman Farrukh, JJ |
| Parties | AZMAT RABBANI‑‑‑Appellant Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED, BANK SQUARE, FAISALABAD and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999CLC413 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999CLC413 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum and Saeed‑ur‑Rehman Farrukh, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999CLC413 (PLP) (AZMAT RABBANI‑‑‑Appellant Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED, BANK SQUARE, FAISALABAD and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Aslam Riaz for Appellant
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 11‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, R.58‑‑‑Attachment of property‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Objection petition‑‑‑Appellant tiled objection petition before Banking Tribunal against attachment of property on basis of agreement to sell with judgment‑debtor in respect of attached property, which was rejected‑‑ Decree‑holder offered a price five times more than the price mentioned in agreement to sell‑‑‑Attached property was mortgaged in favour of decree‑holder and all necessary documents were with the decree‑holder‑‑‑As to how property was agreed to be sold for paltry amount when decree‑holder was ready to purchase that property at a much higher price was not explained‑‑‑Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
M. Aslam Riaz for Appellant This appeal is directed against the order, dated 16‑5‑1995 passed by Chairman, Banking Tribunal, Faisalabad whereby the objection petition, filed .by the appellant under Order 21, Rule 58, C.P.C: seeking a direction for recall of the order for attachment of Property No. 102‑W‑6, Madina Town, Faisalabad, on the motion of the respondent‑decree‑holder, was dismissed. It was averred by the appellant that he had' purchased the disputed property vide sale agreement, dated 1‑1‑1990 for Rs.3,00,000 out of which a sum of Rs.1,00,000 had already been paid and balance amount was to be paid by 1‑1‑1993 and the bank could not legally seek attachment of the property in execution proceedings to enforce its decree, dated 5‑9‑1995 for recovery of Rs.31,82,539 apart for mark up amount of Rs.3,04,
486. The objection petition was opposed by the respondent‑decree‑holder, who pleaded, inter alia, that the agreement being relied upon by the appellant was forged and collusive, manufactured to cause loss to the bank. It was asserted that the judgment‑debtor had mortgaged the disputed property earlier in its favour. Besides, original title deeds, no‑objection‑certificate from Faisalabad Development Authority, non‑encumbrance certificate and other connected documents were handed over by him to the bank and in the presence of a subsisting mortgage qua the property, the question of its sale in favour of the appellant hardly arose. It was also pleaded that the property was very valuable and the bank was prepared to purchase it for Rs.15,00,000.
2. Learned Banking Tribunal, after hearing the parties dismissed the objection petition by observing that, prima facie, tae agreement of sale appeared to be of no avail to the appellant particularly keeping in view of the market value of the property which wits disproportionately higher than the amount mentioned in the alleged sale agreement.
3. We have perused the record with the assistance of the learned counsel and cave reached the conclusion that there is no merit in this appeal. Learned counsel could not explain as to how a property, which the decree‑holder was ready to purchase for Rs.15,00,000 through the learned Tribunal, had been agreed to be alienated to the appellant by the judgment‑debtor for paltry amount of Rs.3,00,
000. No evidence was led in support of the objection petition and no grievance was made either before us that some opportunity to lead evidence was B sought from the learned Tribunal and it was refused.
4. There is no force in this appeal which is hereby dismissed Q.M.H./A‑343/1 Appeal dismissed