1988 PLP 2060 (CLC)
MIDDLE EAST BANK Ltd‑‑Plaintiff Versus Messrs UNIVERSAL RICE AND GRAIN ESTABLISHMENT and 8 others‑‑Defendants
| Citation | 1988 PLP 2060 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Syed Abdur Rehman, J |
| Parties | MIDDLE EAST BANK Ltd‑‑Plaintiff Versus Messrs UNIVERSAL RICE AND GRAIN ESTABLISHMENT and 8 others‑‑Defendants |
| Primary Law | Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 2060 (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 1988 PLP 2060 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Syed Abdur Rehman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 2060 (CLC) (MIDDLE EAST BANK Ltd‑‑Plaintiff Versus Messrs UNIVERSAL RICE AND GRAIN ESTABLISHMENT and 8 others‑‑Defendants). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 16th August, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 6‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
0. XXXVII, Rr.2 & 3‑‑Suit for recovery of loans‑‑Some of defendants did not appear on date fixed for hearing their time‑barred application for leave to defend suit and others failed to file their written statement on date fixed for that purpose‑‑Undefended suit was decreed against all defendants jointly and severally in circumstances. Liaquat Merchant for Plaintiff. Nemo for Defendants.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 6‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
0. XXXVII, Rr.2 & 3‑‑Suit for recovery of loans‑‑Some of defendants did not appear on date fixed for hearing their time‑barred application for leave to defend suit and others failed to file their written statement on date fixed for that purpose‑‑Undefended suit was decreed against all defendants jointly and severally in circumstances. Liaquat Merchant for Plaintiff. Nemo for Defendants. Date of hearing: 16th August, 1987. The plaintiff Middle East Bank Ltd. has filed this suit for recovery of Rs.28,77,30,368.68, alleging that defendant No.2 had executed promissory note as Proprietor of defendant No.1 and, therefore, provisions of Order XXXVII shall apply to defendants Nos. l and
2. No application for leave to defend was filed by defendant No.1 while an application for leave to defend has been filed by the defendant No. 2 which is barred by time and is, therefore, supplemented with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. Today both these applications were fixed for hearing but there was no appearance for defendant No.l. Hence CMAs‑2657/1987 and 2658/1987 are dismissed for non‑prosecution. Similarly, defendants Nos. 5 and 6 had made application for leave to defend as well as for condonation of delay in filing the same but have remained absent today. Hence CMAs‑2381/1987 to 2384/1987 are dismissed for non -prosecution.
2. Three week's time was given to the defendants Nos. 3, 7, 8 and 9 for filing the written statement. They have filed written statements, but their written statements are beyond the period of three weeks allowed to them. No application has been made by these defendants for extension of time to file the written statement. Hence these written statements are not taken on record. It would, therefore, appear that the suit against all the defendants goes undefended. Hence I decree the suit against all the defendants Nos.1 to 9 jointly and severally for a sum of Rs.28,77,30,368.68 in accordance with the prayer made in para. 27 of the plaint, in that first a preliminary mortgage decree will be passed and then the final mortgage decree. Interest at the rate of 14% per annum with quarterly rest as well as costs are also awarded. Suit stands disposed of. H . B . T . / M‑32 7/ K ‑‑‑‑‑ Suit decreed.