1989 PLP 977 (MLD)
ANWAR JEHAN ARA BEGUM and others‑‑Appellants Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 977 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, CJ. and Abdul Rahim Kazi, J |
| Parties | ANWAR JEHAN ARA BEGUM and others‑‑Appellants Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 977 (MLD)?
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 1989 PLP 977 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, CJ. and Abdul Rahim Kazi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 977 (MLD) (ANWAR JEHAN ARA BEGUM and others‑‑Appellants Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Faizanul Haq for Appellants.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.12(1), proviso‑‑Appeal‑‑Maintainability of‑‑Appeal is not competent from interlocutory order which did not dispose of entire case before Special Court‑ Suit still pending before Special Court‑‑Appeal against order of Court closing side of appellant is not competent.
Judgment & Decree
High Court Appeal No. 122 of 1988, decided on‑14th September, 1988. ‑‑‑S.12(1), proviso‑‑Appeal‑‑Maintainability of‑‑Appeal is not competent from interlocutory order which did not dispose of entire case before Special Court‑ Suit still pending before Special Court‑‑Appeal against order of Court closing side of appellant is not competent. Faizanul Haq for Appellants. AJMAL MIAN, C.J.‑This High Court Appeal is directed against an order dated 18‑4‑1988 passed by a learned Single Judge exercising power of Special Banking Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 closing the side of the present appellant/defendant. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal. The office has raised an objection as to the maintainability of the above appeal and the case has been fixed for that purpose. Mr. Faizanul Haq learned counsel for the appellant has contended that since as far as the appellant is concerned after the closing of the side the matter has been decided against him and has been finally disposed of. However, we have pointed out to the learned counsel for the appellant that in terms of proviso to subsection (1) of section 12 of the aforesaid Ordinance, which provides that no appeal shall lie from interlocutory order which does not dispose of the entire case before the Special Court, the present appeal is not competent as admittedly the suit is still pending before the learned Special Judge even after the closing of the above side of the appellant. The office objection is, therefore, sustained and the appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./A‑477/K Appeal dismissed.