2002 PLP 491 (CLD)
AQEEL AHMED alias AQEEL AMJAD‑‑‑Appellant Versus CITIBANK N.A., FAISALABAD through General‑Attorney ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 491 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawad S. Khawaja and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ |
| Parties | AQEEL AHMED alias AQEEL AMJAD‑‑‑Appellant Versus CITIBANK N.A., FAISALABAD through General‑Attorney ‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 491 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 491 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawad S. Khawaja and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 491 (CLD) (AQEEL AHMED alias AQEEL AMJAD‑‑‑Appellant Versus CITIBANK N.A., FAISALABAD through General‑Attorney ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khashnood Akhtar Raja for Appellant.
- Shahid Ikram Siddiqui, Raja Shaukat Ali Khan and Mian Saeed Ullah Auction‑Purchaser for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 12th December, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)--‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 12 & 21‑‑‑Ex parte decree, setting aside of‑‑‑Appellant in his application contended that his address given in the plaint was incorrect‑‑‑Banking Court dismissed the application‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Address given in the plaint was the same, which appellant had himself given in the agreement entered by him with respondent‑Bank and had not denied execution thereof‑‑ Banking Court had rightly dismissed such application‑‑‑High Court dismissed the appeal in circumstances. (b) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 18 & 21‑‑‑Execution of decree‑‑‑Appellant did not press objection petition filed to assail auction of property‑‑‑Executing Court confirmed the auction in favour of auction‑purchaser‑‑‑Legal right in auctioned property had become duly vested in the auction‑purchaser‑‑‑Such auction could not be allowed to be challenged at such a late stage before the Appellate Court.
Judgment & Decree
JAWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.‑‑‑This appeal assails the judgment and decree, dated 17‑3‑1998 passed by the learned Judge Banking Court No. II, Faisalabad and the order, dated 1‑3‑1999 passed by the said Court.
2. The impugned judgment and decree, which were passed ex parte, have been assailed by the appellant on the ground that the plaintiff Bank had provided incorrect address of the appellant in the plaint. According to him, the appellant was residing at House No.661, Ali Housing Colony, Faisalabad,' but the address given in the plaint was 221/6‑C, Altaf Gunj, Faisalabad. This submission on behalf of the appellant, however, has no merit because the appellant had himself entered into an agreement with the respondent‑Bank for the purpose of satisfying the decree passed against him. In the said agreement the appellant has himself given his address as 221/6‑C, Altaf Gunj, Faisalabad, which was the address given in the plaint. The execution of the aforesaid agreement is not denied by the appellant. In the circumstances, the learned Banking Court was entirely justified in passing the order, dated 1‑3‑1999 and thereby dismissing the application moved by the appellant/defendant for setting aside of the ex parte decree.
3. We also note that the auction has been duly confirmed in favour of the auction‑purchaser vide order, dated 2‑3‑1999 passed by the learned Banking Court. It appears from the contents of the order, dated 1‑3‑1999 that an objection petition was filed on behalf of the appellant to assail the auction of the property in dispute, but the same was not pressed by counsel representing the appellant in these circumstances, a legal right in the auctioned property has become duly vested in the auction purchaser. The appellant cannot at this late stage, be allowed to assail the auction.
4. In view of the above circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal which is, therefore, dismissed. S.A.K./A‑381/L Appeal dismissed.