2002 PLP 593 (CLD)
Mrs. RAANA AKBAR‑ ‑‑Appellant Versus BANK OF PUNJAB through Mr. Tariq Hameed,
| Citation | 2002 PLP 593 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ |
| Parties | Mrs. RAANA AKBAR‑ ‑‑Appellant Versus BANK OF PUNJAB through Mr. Tariq Hameed, |
| Primary Law | Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 593 (CLD)?
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 2002 PLP 593 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 593 (CLD) (Mrs. RAANA AKBAR‑ ‑‑Appellant Versus BANK OF PUNJAB through Mr. Tariq Hameed,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iftikhar Ullah Malik for Appellant.
- Ghulam Haider Algazali for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 21st January, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.11‑‑‑Sale of property in execution of decree‑‑‑Judgment debtor substituted his mortgaged property known as A with property known as B‑‑‑Objection of judgment‑debtor was that property known as C could not be sold before sale of property known as A‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Bank had already sold the substituted property known as B in execution of decree thus property known as C could neither be released from attachment nor exempted from sale.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA. J.‑‑‑This appeal impugns the order, dated 13‑9‑2001 passed by the learned Banking Court II, Lahore.
2. Before us learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant's Property bearing No. 114-A, Ahmed Block, New Garden Town, Lahore, had neither been mortgaged nor properly attached and as such it could not be brought to sale in ' execution of the decree dated 11‑6‑1995 obtained by the respondent‑Bank.
3. We have gone through the impugned order with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties and have also considered their arguments. It was contended before us by learned counsel for the appellant that the decree‑holder Bank was a mortgagee of property measuring 4‑1 /2 Kanals comprised in Khasra No. 5686 in Mouza Niaz Baig vide mortgage deed, dated 15‑4‑1990. According to him the appellant's property referred to above could only be sold after the sale of the aforesaid mortgaged property. Learned counsel for the decree‑holder bank has produced in Court documents to show that the property in Mouza Niaz Baig has been substituted by the judgment‑debtors with properly situated at 3‑F, Gulberg‑II, Lahore, measuring 2 Kanals, 2 Marlas, 150 sq. ft. In these circumstances, he stated the property in Mouza Niaz Baig was not available. This position has also been admitted by the appellant/judgment‑debtor in her reply to show‑cause notice issued under section 6(2) of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984. As to the other property bearing No.3‑F, Gulberg‑II. Lahore, learned counsel for the decree holder Bank has pointed out the said property has already been sold in execution of the above‑referred decree. In this view of the matter, we find that II the Property No. 114‑A, Ahmed Block, New Garden Town. Lahore, can neither be released from attachment nor exempted from sale. The impugned order as such is not open to exception. Consequently, this appeal, being without merit, is dismissed. S.A.K./R‑105/L Appeal dismissed.