P L D 2000 Lahore 296 (PLP)
LEASING LTD. through Chief Executive‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus Messrs REGENT DYEING AND FINISHING MILLS (PVT.)
| Citation | P L D 2000 Lahore 296 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | LEASING LTD. through Chief Executive‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus Messrs REGENT DYEING AND FINISHING MILLS (PVT.) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2000 Lahore 296 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2000 Lahore 296 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2000 Lahore 296 (PLP) (LEASING LTD. through Chief Executive‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus Messrs REGENT DYEING AND FINISHING MILLS (PVT.)). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 11‑‑‑Bankers' Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891)‑‑‑Suit for recovery of Bank loan‑‑‑Leave to defend the suit‑‑‑Statement of account‑‑‑Contention of the defendant was that the statement of account was not properly maintained‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Defendant placed nothing on record in support of his assertion, whereas certified copy of statement of accounts signed by the plaintiff was filed by the plaintiff‑‑‑Presumption of truth was attached to such statement under the provisions of Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891‑‑ Leave to defend the suit was declined in circumstances. (b) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 11‑‑‑Suit for recovery of Bank loan‑‑‑Leave to defend the suit‑‑ Guarantor was employee of the company and stood as guarantor but subsequently he was substituted by another guarantor who was Director of the Company‑ Such fact was, prima facie, supported by memorandum of amendment signed by the debtors as also by the new guarantor‑‑‑Guarantor (defendant No.2) in circumstances, had disclosed a triable issue‑‑‑Leave to appear and defend the suit was granted in circumstances. Zahid Malik for Plaintiff. Ali Ahmad Awan for Defendants Nos. 1, 3, 4 and
5. Syed Haider Ali Shah for Defendant No 2.
Judgment & Decree
There are two applications for leave to appear and defend the suit. So far as the application filed by defendants Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 is concerned, the only contention raised by the learned counsel is that accounts have not been properly maintained. Nothing has been placed on record in support of this assertion. On the other hand, the plaintiff has placed on record certain documents signed by the defendants alongwith statement of accounts which is certified on oath under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act and carries presumption of truth. Therefore, application for leave to appear and defend the suit filed by defendants Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 is dismissed.
2. The other application is by defendant No.2 whose case is that he was an employee of the company and originally stood guarantor but subsequently he was substituted by Asif Sehgal, a Director of the company, on 21‑8‑1995. This fact is supported prima facie by the memorandum of amendment of offer letter dated 31‑3‑1995 which was signed by the debtors 8 as also by the guarantors. Though the name of Kamran Zali has been typed on the documents it does not bear his signatures. This defendant has, therefore, disclosed a triable issue and is granted leave to appear and defend the suit. In view of what has been stated above, interim decree for recovery of Rs.35,705,695 is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants Nos. 1, 3, 4 and
5. Written statement shall be filed by defendant No.2 within two weeks. For framing of issues to come up on 21‑9‑1999. Q.M.H./M.A.K./P‑S/L Order accordingly.