2009 PLP 425 (CLD)
STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman and another — Appellants Versus Mst. ANWAR GULZAR through her son — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 425 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman and another — Appellants Versus Mst. ANWAR GULZAR through her son — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 425 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 425 (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: 2009 PLP 425 (CLD) (STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman and another — Appellants Versus Mst. ANWAR GULZAR through her son — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Ss.118 & 124---Application for payment of death claim along with liquidated damages--Appeal to High Court---Counsel for respondent when confronted that the final judgment passed in a matter, without deciding pending application was not sustainable in the eye of law, he conceded and had submitted that the appellant was delaying the matter with mala fide intent, so as to deprive the respondent from her lawful claim, based on a valid insurance policy---Parties had reached the consensus; that the impugned judgment and decree be set aside with the result that the suit of the respondent be deemed to be pending along with application of the appellant for summoning the witness; that counsel for the respondent would contest the application for summoning the witnesses; that Tribunal would decide the application in the first instance through a speaking order and thereafter would proceed in the matter; that direction be issued to the Tribunal for expeditious disposal of the petition---Impugned order/judgment was set aside with the result that petition of respondent as well as the application of the appellant would be deemed pending before the Tribunal---Tribunal would first decide the application of the petitioner and thereafter the petition of the respondent.
- Liaqat Ali Butt for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.118 & 124
Application for payment of death claim along with liquidated damages--Appeal to High Court
Counsel for respondent when confronted that the final judgment passed in a matter, without deciding pending application was not sustainable in the eye of law, he conceded and had submitted that the appellant was delaying the matter with mala fide intent, so as to deprive the respondent from her lawful claim, based on a valid insurance policy
Parties had reached the consensus; that the impugned judgment and decree be set aside with the result that the suit of the respondent be deemed to be pending along with application of the appellant for summoning the witness; that counsel for the respondent would contest the application for summoning the witnesses; that Tribunal would decide the application in the first instance through a speaking order and thereafter would proceed in the matter; that direction be issued to the Tribunal for expeditious disposal of the petition
Impugned order/judgment was set aside with the result that petition of respondent as well as the application of the appellant would be deemed pending before the Tribunal
Tribunal would first decide the application of the petitioner and thereafter the petition of the respondent.
Judgment & Decree
After arguing the case at some length, learned counsel for the respondent, when confronted that the final judgment passed in a matter, without deciding pending application is not sustainable in the eye of law. This issue stood settled through various pronouncements by the superior Courts including, Messrs Waheed Corporation through Proprietor and another v. Allied Bank of Pakistan through Manager 2003 CLD 245, Sheikh Muhammad Kashif v. Askari Leasing Limited through Manager/Chief Executive of Branch/Recovery Officer 2004 CLD 1645 and Messrs M.A. Chaudhry and 3 others v. National Bank of Pakistan, Faisalabad through General Attorney 2005 CLD 875, learned counsel concedes. He has however submitted that the appellant is delaying the matter, with mala fide intent, so as to deprive the respondent from her lawful claim, based on a valid insurance policy.
2. Parties after arguing the case at some length have reached the following consensus:- (i) The impugned judgment and decree be set aside with the result that the suit of the plaintiff/respondent be deemed to be pending along with application of the appellant for summoning the witnesses. (ii) Learned counsel for the respondent will contest the application (for summoning the witnesses). (iii) Learned Tribunal will decide the application in the first instance through a speaking order and thereafter will proceed in the matter. (iv) Direction to the Tribunal for expeditious disposal of the petition.
3. In view of the above consensus, the impugned order/judgment is set aside with the result that petition of respondent as well as the application of the appellant is deemed as pending before the learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal will decide the application and thereafter the petition of the respondent. Learned Tribunal will decide the matter finally within a period of two months from the receipt of this order. In case the matter is not decided within the above timeframe, learned Tribunal will convey to the Deputy Registrar of this Court, the reasons for such delay. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. H.B.T./S-4/L Order accordingly.