2006 PLP 1299 (CLD)
Malik KHALIL AHMED — Appellant Versus HABIB BANK LIMITED through Branch Manager and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1299 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Malik KHALIL AHMED — Appellant Versus HABIB BANK LIMITED through Branch Manager and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1299 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1299 (CLD)?
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: 2006 PLP 1299 (CLD) (Malik KHALIL AHMED — Appellant Versus HABIB BANK LIMITED through Branch Manager and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Afzal Sandhu for Respondent-Bank.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 19
Sale of mortgaged property sought by judgment-debtor through private negotiations
Prerogative of decree-holder to seek execution and satisfaction of decree through the mode he chooses
Judgment-debtor could not be permitted to sell mortgaged property through private negotiations
High Court rejected such prayer of judgment-debtor.
S. 19
Decree for recovery of loan amount, execution of
Mortgaged property
Prayer of guarantor that first property of principal borrower be put to auction for satisfaction of decree
Status of guarantor was independent
Such prayer was not allowed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
The appeal in hand and Executive First Appeal No.341 of 2006 are against the same impugned order dated 9-5-2006, passed by learned Executing Court/the Banking Court, Lahore, hence are being disposed of together.
2. The very brief facts of the case are that the respondent-Bank brought a suit for the recovery of Rs.5,301,972.90 against Messrs Common Traders (Pak) Pvt. Ltd., who is the principal borrower in the matter, and also against the appellants in both the appeals as being the guarantors of' the finance. This suit has been decreed by the Banking Court on 19-5-2004. The respondent-Bank brought proceeding for the execution of the decree by way of sale of the mortgaged property of both the appellants. The appellant in Executive First Appeal No.341 of 2006 moved an application seeking indulgence of the Court for the sale of his property by private negotiation. The Court has rejected the application and has directed the sale of the mortgaged properties of both the appellants/guarantors. It may be pertinent to mention that the appellant in Executive First Appeal No.278 of 2006 also moved an application, wherein it was prayed that the decree should first be satisfied by the sale of the property of other guarantor, who was imputed to be the principal borrower of the finance and was alleged to be the real beneficiary. The Court vide impugned order has rejected the claim as well. Hence these appeals.
3. The submission made by the learned counsel in E.F.A. No.278 of 2006 that the appellant is only a guarantor, whereas, respondent No.2 is the guarantor and also the principal borrower, therefore, first his property be put to auction, is absolutely unfounded, because according to the record, the finance was granted to Messrs Common Traders (Pak) Pvt. Ltd. and the said respondent has only signed the agreement as being the Director of the Company, whereas, his status as the guarantor is admitted and independent. Similarly, the arguments of the appellant's counsel in Executive First Appeal No.341 of 2006 that he be permitted to sell the property through private negotiation, cannot be allowed, as it is the prerogative of the decree-holder to seek the execution and the satisfaction of his decree through the mode he chooses. No case-law has been cited by the learned counsel, under which, the judgment debtor should be permitted to sell the mortgaged property through private negotiations. Both these appeals have no merit and are accordingly dismissed. S.A.K./K-47/L Appeals dismissed.