1992 PLP 1964 (CLC)
SHER ALI AKHTAR and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Messrs HABIB BANK LTD. and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1964 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Syed Haider Ali Pirzada and MukhtarAhmed Junejo, JJ |
| Parties | SHER ALI AKHTAR and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Messrs HABIB BANK LTD. and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1964 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1964 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Syed Haider Ali Pirzada and MukhtarAhmed Junejo, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1964 (CLC) (SHER ALI AKHTAR and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Messrs HABIB BANK LTD. and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- J.H. Rahimtoola for Petitioners. Gulzar Ahmed for Respondent No. 1. Date of hearing: 26th February, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 12(5)‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OXXXVII, R.3‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Suit for recovery of money in summary jurisdiction‑‑‑Defendant granted conditional leave to defend suit subject to furnishing of security‑‑‑Petitioners application to Court to accept as security that property which was already mortgaged by them with respondent was turned down on the assumption that such application tantamounted to review application‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Word "security" used in S.12(5), Banking Companies 628 fol.
Judgment & Decree
MUKHTAR AHMED JUNEJO, J.‑‑‑This Constitution petition is .directed against the orders dated 10‑10‑1989 and dated 23‑5‑1990 passed by the Presiding Officer Special Court (Banking) Karachi (hereinafter to be mentioned as the Banking Court). Respondent No.l Habib Bank Ltd. filed Suit No.148/1987 against the petitioners in the Banking Court for recovery of Rs.1,63,329.04. The petitioners being defendants in the said suit, moved the Banking Court for grant of un conditional leave to defend the suit on various grounds. Under an order dated 10‑10‑1989 the Banking Court granted to the petitioners leave to defend the suit subject to furnishing of security by 15‑11‑1989. In pursuance of such orders the petitioners moved the Banking Court to accept as security the property, which was already mortgaged by them with the respondent No.1. The Banking Court under the impugned order dated 23‑5‑1990 dismissed application of the applicants which he took to be review application. Hence this Constitution petition. Mr. J.H. Rahimtoola, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners had not moved the Banking Court for review of the order dated 10‑10‑1989 and that the Banking Court had either to accept the surety or to reject it and that the application of the applicants to the effect that the property already mortgaged with respondent No.l. be accepted as security, cannot be treated as an application for review of the order dated 10‑10‑1989. Mr. Gulzar Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the property already mortgaged with the respondent No.l cannot be accepted as security in pursuance of the order dated 10‑10‑1989. In the case of Usman Hussain v. Habib Bank Limited and others PLD 1988 Kar. 628, it was held that the word security used in subsection (5) of section 12 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 will include even the security which was originally accepted against the loan. In view of aforesaid authority the Banking Court was not right in declining to consider request of the petitioners. The Banking Court appears to have fallen in gross error by treating application of the petitioners for acceptance of the mortgaged property as security in compliance of Court's order dated 10‑10‑1989, to be an application for review of the order dated 10‑10‑1989. For the aforegoing reasons, the impugned order dated 23‑5‑1990 is declared to be unwarranted by law and of no legal effect and the constitution petition is accordingly allowed. There are reasons for our short order in identical terms dated 26‑2‑1992. AA./S‑894/K Petition accepted