2004 PLP 1507 (CLD)
Ch. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED‑ ‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1507 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | Ch. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED‑ ‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1507 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1507 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1507 (CLD) (Ch. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED‑ ‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Azhar Salam, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 4th March, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from order dated 22‑2‑2000 passed in F.A.O. No.39 of 2000 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore). Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.21‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑ Appeal‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑During execution proceedings, appellant filed objection before Executing Court which was dismissed on 10‑9‑1999‑‑‑Application for obtaining certified copy of the order was filed on 8‑2‑2000, i.e. after the expiry of prescribed period for filing appeal under S.21 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997‑‑‑Appeal was time‑barred and the appellant failed to point out any sufficient cause for condonation of delay‑‑‑High Court dismissed the time‑barred appeal on the ground that nobody should be allowed to get benefit of his own misdeed/negligence‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Appellant failed to show any illegality or infirmity in the judgment calling interference by Supreme Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
TANIVR AHMED KHAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 22‑2‑2000 whereby F.A.O. No.39 of 2000 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore being hopelessly time‑barred.
2. Facts briefly are that a recovery suit was filed by the respondent‑Bank against Messrs Sheikh Carpet Pvt. Ltd. which was decreed by the Judge Banking Court No.4 Lahore vide his judgment dated 25‑11‑1998. The Bank filed execution application and the present petitioner filed objection petition before the learned Banking Court. The said objection petition was dismissed vide order dated 10‑9‑1999 being frivolous and unconvincing. Thereafter the petitioner remained dormant and moved a miscellaneous application under section 151, C.P.C. before the Banking Court for the deletion of the property from the execution proceedings. The said application was dismissed on 2‑2‑2000. Again the petitioner went into slumber and filed appeal against the order dated 10‑9‑1999 on 17‑2‑2000. This appeal is certainly time -barred as the order impugned was passed on 10‑9‑1999 whereas certified copy thereof was obtained on 8‑2‑2000. The learned Division Bench while dismissing the appeal has given cogent reasons which are in the following terms:‑‑ "
4. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel of the appellant-applicant and perused the record ourselves. It is admitted fact that the objection petition was dismissed vide order dated 10-9-1999. The appellant-applicant filed application for obtaining certified copy of the order dated 10-9-1999 on 8-2-2000 after the prescribed period for filing appeal under section 21 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997. The appeal is highly time-barred and the learned counsel of the applicant-appellant failed to point out any sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It is settled proposition of law that nobody should be allowed to get the benefit of his own misdeed negligence."
3. The learned counsel has not been able to show any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment calling interference by this Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused. M.H./M‑789/S Petition dismissed.