2005 PLP 1621 (CLD)
SHAUKAT HUSSAIN — Appellant Versus HABIB BANK LIMITED — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1621 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHAUKAT HUSSAIN — Appellant Versus HABIB BANK LIMITED — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1621 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1621 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1621 (CLD) (SHAUKAT HUSSAIN — Appellant Versus HABIB BANK LIMITED — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Nasir Mehmood for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9 & 22
Appellant filed application for obtaining copy of impugned judgment of Banking Court at a time when period of limitation for filing appeal had already run
Even thereafter appeal was not filed promptly and considerable time was allowed to elapse
Hardly any ground was made for seeking condonation of delay
Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908, being not applicable to the appeal, same was liable to be dismissed being clearly time-barred.
Judgment & Decree
SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.
This appeal, directed against the judgment of the Banking Tribunal, Faisalabad, dated 18-4-1996, is prima facie time-barred. An application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 has been filed for seeking condonation of delay. The learned counsel for the respondent-Bank contests the application that the provisions of section 5, Limitation Act, 1908, have not been made applicable to the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, and that even no reason worth considering for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been brought forth.
2. We find from the record that the judgment was rendered by the learned Banking Tribunal on 18-4-1996, but the copy thereof was applied for on 6-6-1996 by which time the period of limitation for filing of' the appeal had already run. Even thereafter the appeal was not filed promptly after obtaining copy of the judgment and decree and considerable time was allowed to elapse. There is hardly any ground made out for seeking condonation of delay. This is besides the fact that section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, is not applicable to such an appeal. The appeal is thus, clearly time-barred. The application as also the appeal, therefore, is dismissed. No order as to costs. H.B.T./S-248/L Appeal dismissed.