1986 PLP 1386 (SCMR)
GHULAM QADIR KHAN and 12 others — Petitioners Versus THE MULTAN CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK Ltd. — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1386 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM QADIR KHAN and 12 others — Petitioners Versus THE MULTAN CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK Ltd. — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1386 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1386 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1386 (SCMR) (GHULAM QADIR KHAN and 12 others — Petitioners Versus THE MULTAN CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK Ltd. — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khalilur Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, S. Talib H . Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) with S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th March, 1986.
- Ch. Khalilur Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, S. Talib H . Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) with S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petition No. 505 of 1967, dated 5-12-1979).
Art. 185(3)--Proceedings with regard to recovery of bank loan agitated in civil Court which concluded that it had no jurisdiction in the matter- Point agitated before Supreme Court merely technical relating to jurisdictional aspect of case--Order of High Court on question in dispute prima facie suffering from no infirmity--Leave to appeal refused.
Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal--Jurisdiction of Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal is highly discretionary.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 5‑12‑1979 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Constitutional petition arising out of a case of recovery of loan obtained from Multan Central Co‑operative Bank Limited (respondent), was dismissed on point of jurisdiction of the Civil Court wherein the matter had been agitated.
2. According to the facts briefly stated by the learned counsel after protracted proceedings the award for recovery of the money was made against the petitioners. In appeal they succeeded in getting the amount reduced from nearly Rs.9 Lacs to Rs.3,87,320 plus costs amounting to Rs.2,
500. It is stated that the recovery has already been effected. The proceedings were sought to be challenged before the Civil Court which in the hierarchy having held that it had no jurisdiction, the matter has now been agitated for grant of leave to appeal.
3. Along with the Writ Petition out of which the present petition arises another Writ Petition relating to the recovery of the amount through attachment and sale was also filed and the same was dismissed. Thus, in so far as the question of determination of the liability of the petitioners and the repayment of loans is concerned the matter is no more before us. The points sought to be agitated are merely technical relating to the jurisdictional aspect of the case. Nothing was said before the High Court indicating that the petitioners were not liable to pay the loan. The jurisdiction of this Court to grant leave to appeal is highly discretionary. In the above circumstances of this case, therefore, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal merely to examine the technical points. It may be remarked that the High Court judgment on those questions also does not prima facie suffer from any infirmity. Be that as it may, for the afore stated reason that it is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal, the same is declined and the petition is dismissed. M.Y.H. Petition dismissed