2001 PLP 1157 (MLD)
M. SULEMAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus HABIB BANK LIMITED and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1157 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir and Naseem Sikandar. JJ |
| Parties | M. SULEMAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus HABIB BANK LIMITED and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 1157 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 1157 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir and Naseem Sikandar. JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 1157 (MLD) (M. SULEMAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus HABIB BANK LIMITED and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Tariq Muhammad Iqbal for Appellant.
- Date of hearing 30th March, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Ordinance (XXV of 1997)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 9, 10 & 16‑‑‑Suit for recovery of amount‑‑‑Appeal against judgment of Banking Court‑‑‑Banking Court decreed the suit ordering the borrower to deposit specified amount in lump sum and pay the remaining amount in twelve monthly instalments‑‑‑Borrower filed application before Banking Court praying that remaining amount be recovered in twenty‑four equal monthly instalments instead of twelve which was dismissed by the Banking Court and the borrower had filed appeal against said order‑‑‑Borrower, who had admitted in the Court to make payment in twelve equal monthly instalments, had failed to refer any law empowering Court to make the instalments of the decretal amount‑‑‑No case, in circumstances, was pending before Banking Court and said Court being functus officio, had rightly dismissed the application of the borrower‑‑‑In absence of any illegality in the order of Banking Court same could not be interfered with in appeal.
Judgment & Decree
Tariq Muhammad Iqbal for Appellant. Date of hearing 30th March, 2000. This appeal under section 16 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Ordinance, 1997 has been filed to call in question order dated 4‑3‑2000 passed by the Judge Banking Court, Sahiwal.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant and respondents Nos.2 to 5 had obtained a loan of Rs.4 Lacs on 23‑11‑1992 from respondent No.
1. Respondent No. 1 instituted a suit for the recovery of loan amount in the Court of Banking Judge, Sahiwal which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 3‑11‑1999, in favour of respondent No.
1. The Judge, Banking Court ordered the appellant vide judgment dated 4‑3‑2000 to deposit a sum of Rs.1,25,000 on 16‑11‑1999 and remaining amount to be paid in 12 equal monthly instalments. The appellant failed to comply with the order of Banking Judge. Thereafter, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 84 of 2000 in the High Court which was dismissed as withdrawn to file a fresh application before the Banking Judge.
3. The appellant and respondents Nos.2 to 5 filed an application before Banking Judge praying therein that the remaining amount be recovered in 24 equal monthly instalments instead of
12. The learned Banking Judge, vide impugned order, dismissed the application.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that due to financial hardships the appellant and respondents Nos.2 to 5 failed to deposit the amount in 12 monthly instalments. The appellant is willing to make the payment provided the appellant is allowed to make the payment in 24 easy instalments.
5. When confronted with the proposition, learned counsel for the appellant has'not been able to refer any law empowering this Court to make the instalments of the decretal amount. The appellant and respondents Nos.2 to 5 have themselves admitted in the Court to make the payment in 12 equal monthly instalments. No case was pending before the Banking Court, being functus officio rightly dismissed the applications of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any illegality in the impugned order. For the foregoing reasons we are constrained to dismiss this appeal in limine. Order accordingly. H.B.T./M‑523/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.