CLD 2013

2013 PLP 1516 (CLD)

NASIRUDDIN SHAHAB — Petitioner Versus SUB-REGISTRAR-I and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Sindh
Decided Date
2012-April-19
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2013 PLP 1516 (CLD)
Forum / Court Sindh
Bench Members N/A
Parties NASIRUDDIN SHAHAB — Petitioner Versus SUB-REGISTRAR-I and others — Respondents
Primary Law Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 1516 (CLD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 1516 (CLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 1516 (CLD) (NASIRUDDIN SHAHAB — Petitioner Versus SUB-REGISTRAR-I and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)

Representation

  • Shafiq Ahmed for Petitioners.
  • Ms. Naheed A. Shahid for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.
  • Murtaza Wahab and Ahmed Pirzada, Advocates.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 9

Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199

Constitutional petition

Maintainability

Petitioner's plea was that he had mortgaged one property with the Bank, which had issued letter to Sub-Register not to accept without its NOC, registration of sale deed of 9 other properties belonging to the petitioner

Bank's plea was that petitioner had availed finances for such 9 properties, which he could not sell without repaying amount of finance

Validity

Banking Court had jurisdiction to decide such dispute pertaining to financial transaction

Banking Court had passed restraint order against such properties in a suit filed by Bank

Petitioner had already filed suit in Banking Court challenging validity of such letter

High Court dismissed constitutional petition in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

Case of the petitioner is that he mortgaged the property bearing No. 27-C, Rahat Lane 3, Phase 6, D.H.A Karachi as surety for the finance availed by him from respondent No.

2. However the respondent No.2 has issued a letter dated 27-3-2008 to the Sub- Registrar-I Clifton Town Karachi (respondent No. 1) blaming that 9 properties listed in the letter have been purchased by the petitioner from the financial facilities extended to him by the respondent No.2, therefore, transfer of these properties may not be accepted unless respondent No.2 gives its no objection. Grievance of the petitioner is that he mortgaged only one property i.e. 27-C, Rahat Lane 3, Phase 6, D.H.A Karachi but when he sought registration of sale deed for other 9 properties, Sub-Registrar-I, Clifton Town Karachi refused to register these properties without any lawful ground. Case of the respondent No. 2 on the other hand, is that Morabaha transactions were extended to the petitioner for these 9 properties and petitioner unless repays the entire amount of finance, these 9 properties cannot be sold. It is also the case of the petitioner that though the advances were extended to the petitioner and these 9 properties were purchased after the finance was extended by the respondent No. 2 but the finances that were involved in the purchase of these 9 properties is not the same that was extended to the petitioner, therefore, these properties are not part of the Morahaba transaction. The respondent No. 2 has filed certain documents showing that all these properties are the outcome of Morahaba transactions but the petitioner has denied this fact and states that separate criminal proceedings have been initiated as all these documents said to be of Morahaba transitions are forged and fabricated. The details of these 9 properties are as under:-- (1) Shop No. 1 on Plot No. 25 Rahat Lane 3, Phase-VI, DHA Karachi. (2) Shop No. 1 on Plot No. 25 Rahat Lane 3, Phase-VI, DHA Karachi.(sic.) (3) Shop No. 2 Plot No. 28-C Rahat Lane 2, Phase VI, DHA Karachi. (4) Shop No. 1 Plot No. 28-C Rahat Lane, Phase VI, DHA Karachi. (5) Shop No. 2 Plot No. 28-C, Rahat Lane No. 3, Phase VI, DHA Karachi. (6) Shop No. 3 Plot No. 28-C Rahat Lane 2 Phase-VI, DHA Karachi. (7) Lower Ground Plot No. 25-C, Rahat Lane 3, Phase VI, DHA Karachi. (8) Shop No. 3, Plot No. 25-C, Rahat Lane 3, Phase-VI, DHA Karachi. (9) Plot No. 5-C, Nishat Lane 3, Phase-VI, DHA Karachi. It is evident that the dispute pertains to financial transaction, jurisdiction of which lies with the Banking Court. Apart from this, Banking Court in a banking suit bearing Suit No.B-22 of 2009 has passed restraint order against the petitioner from selling these 9 properties. In view of the fact that resort to Banking jurisdiction has already been taken by the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner has also filed the Suit No.B-56 of 2009 in the Banking jurisdiction, wherein the letter written to Sub-Registrar has been impugned. This Court finds no justification for interference. Hence, this petition is dismissed. SAK/N-10/K Petition dismissed.