2000 PLP 706 (CLC)
through Chief Executive‑‑‑Appellant Versus LAHORE MEDICAL IMAGING (PVT.) LTD.
| Citation | 2000 PLP 706 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | through Chief Executive‑‑‑Appellant Versus LAHORE MEDICAL IMAGING (PVT.) LTD. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 706 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 706 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 706 (CLC) (through Chief Executive‑‑‑Appellant Versus LAHORE MEDICAL IMAGING (PVT.) LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits ands: Finances) Act (XY of 1997)‑‑‑ S. 9(4)‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, R.2‑‑‑Suit for recovery of Bank loan‑‑‑Leave to defend the suit, refusal of‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Where the defendants had failed to obtain leave to defend the suit the averments contained in the plaint were deemed to be correct‑‑‑Claim of the plaintiff was fully supported by the documents on record‑‑‑Suit of plaintiff was decreed in ' circumstances. Zahid Malik for Plaintiff. Shahzad Rabbani for Defendants.
Judgment & Decree
Finances) Act (XY of 1997)‑‑‑ S. 9(4)‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, R.2‑‑‑Suit for recovery of Bank loan‑‑‑Leave to defend the suit, refusal of‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Where the defendants had failed to obtain leave to defend the suit the averments contained in the plaint were deemed to be correct‑‑‑Claim of the plaintiff was fully supported by the documents on record‑‑‑Suit of plaintiff was decreed in ' circumstances. Zahid Malik for Plaintiff. Shahzad Rabbani for Defendants. In this suit for recovery of Rs.32,323,208 filed by Trust Leasing Corporation, a banking company against Lahore Medical Imaging (Pvt.) Limited and two others, the defendants have applied for leave to defend the suit vide P.L.A. No.108/B of 1998 which has been contested by the plaintiff.
2. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the defendants in support of application for leave to defend the suit is that in the plaint the plaintiff has claimed the lease rentals in respect of the period for which it has not yet become due.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has pointed out that only the lease rentals which are overdue have been claimed in addition to the principal amount. This contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is borne out by a perusal of paras.10 and 18 of the plaint wherein the details of the claim have been given.
4. The learned counsel for the defendants further submitted that penal charges have been imposed by the plaintiff. However, in the plaint there is no such demand made by the plaintiff. Apart from overdue lease rentals, the plaintiff has claimed additional rentals on overdue payment which amounts to Rs.87,
150. This rental has been claimed in terms of clause (11) of the Schedule annexed with the agreement between the parties to which no possible exception can be taken. No other ground having been urged, this application is found to be without any force and is accordingly dismissed.
5. As the defendants have failed to obtain leave to defend the suit, the averments contained in the plaint are deemed to be correct as ordained by Order 37 (2) of C.P.C. and section 9(4) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 Even otherwise the claim of the plaintiff is fully supported by the documents on the record, inter alia agreement between the parties and the statement of accounts. In view of what has been stated above, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed as prayed for with costs. Q.M.H/M.A.K./T-2/L Suit decreed,