1992 PLP 1937 (CLC)
Hafiz MUHAMMAD‑BASHIR ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus HABIB BANK LTD.‑‑‑Respondent‑
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1937 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | Hafiz MUHAMMAD‑BASHIR ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus HABIB BANK LTD.‑‑‑Respondent‑ |
| Primary Law | Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)---‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1937 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)---‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1937 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1937 (CLC) (Hafiz MUHAMMAD‑BASHIR ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus HABIB BANK LTD.‑‑‑Respondent‑). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shamim Abbas Bokhari for Appellant.
- Muhammad Mohsin Ansari for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 19th March, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 6 & 7‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, R. 2‑‑‑Suit for recovery of loan under summary procedure‑‑‑Non‑service of process on borrower as required by OXXXVII, R.2, C.P.C.‑‑‑Failure of borrower to apply for permission to appear and defend‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑On filing suit for recovery of loan by Bank, Court instead of issuing notice to borrower as required under Order XXXVII, R.2, C.P.C. issued notice under Order :V, R.5, C.P.C. for settlement of issues or for final disposal of suit‑‑‑Suit filed by Bank against borrower ,could not be decreed on ground that borrower had failed to apply for leave to defend suit because notice or summons were not issued to him in accordance with Order XXXVI1, R. 2, C.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
On 13‑4‑1977, M/s. Habib Bank Limited filed a suit under Order 37, C.P.C. for the recovery of Rs.2,930 against Harz Muhammad Bashir appellant in the Court of the learned District Judge, Sargodha. Since despite service of summons, the defendant‑appellant failed to appear before the trial Court, therefore, he was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte, vide order dated 1‑6‑1977, and, the case was adjourned to 7‑6‑1977. On 7‑6‑1977, the learned District Judge, decreed the suit. on the ground that the defendant‑appellant having not appeared and sought leave to defend the suit the plaintiff‑bank was entitled for payment of Rs.2,930es prayed.
2. Before me, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that summons, as required under Order 37, rule 2. (Form 4 Appendix `B') of the Civil Procedure Code were not issued, therefore, the suit could not have been decreed on the ground that the defendant had failed to apply for leave to defend the suit within ten days of the service of the summons. Learned counsel for the respondent has frankly and rightly conceded.
3. An examination of the summons issued to the defendant reveals that the summonses issued to the defendant‑appellant were not in Form No.4 in Appendix B'. Although the trial Court in its order had clearly stated that "Notice as prescribed by Rule 2 of Order 37, C.P.C. may issue to the defendant", yet summons to settle the issues under Rule 5 of Order V, C.P.C. were issued to the defendant. That being the position, the suit could not have been decreed on the ground that defendant had failed to apply for leave to defend. So, there, is no option but to accept this appeal. The judgment and decree of the trial Court is, therefore set aside and the case is sent back to the trial Court for fresh proceedings in accordance with law. The parties shall bear their own costs. H.B.T./M‑434/L Appeal accepted.