| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2005 SLG 1772 2005 SLD 1772 2005 CLD 1733 |
Lahore High Court
R.F.A. No.796 of 2001, heard on 27-10-2003.
MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR AND MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JJ
Nemo for
Respondents.
R.F.A. No.796 of 2001, heard on 27-10-2003.
MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR AND MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JJ
Nemo for
Respondents.
ASHAR ELAHI --Appellant
VS
. UNITED BANK LTD. through President and 2 others
Law:
Section:
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)-------Ss.9 & 22---Suit for recovery of loan---Suit filed by plaintiff had been decided in a cursory manner merely on the plea raised by widow of deceased defendant which appeared to be inconsistent with defence earlier raised by her deceased husband---Defendant, while he was alive, had also filed an application for leave to appear and defend suit wherein he stated that f inane facility was obtained with consent of the plaintiff; but real beneficiary was someone else and said application filed by the deceased had also not been decided---Judgment of Banking Court being devoid of any reason, was set aside and case was remanded for decision afresh in accordance with law. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, J.---The plaintiff/ appellant filed a suit on 14-1-1997 for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants/ respondents. It was averred in the plaint that Malik Iftikhar Elahi, deceased, defendant No.3 (the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents) was the first cousin of plaintiffs mother. He was also an employee of the defendant-Bank. 2/3 years ago the defendant No.3 obtained the signatures of the plaintiff on a blank paper while he was a student for opening his account in the Bank. Later on it transpired that some "Benami" loan was obtained by the defendant No.3 in the name of the plaintiff for purchasing a car under the Prime Minister's Yellow Cab Scheme. On 12-9-1997 the plaintiff received a letter from the Bank claiming Rs.2,72,137 as outstandings in A/C No.495. The plaintiff claimed to be a "Benamidar" only. Malik Iftikhar Elahi, defendant No.3 died during the pendency of the suit and his legal heirs were impleaded who are now respondents in this appeal. An application for leave to appear and defend the suit was filed by the defendant No.3 (the predecessor-in-interest of' respondents Nos.3 to 3(vi) admitting that the signatures of the plaintiff were obtained on blank paper. However, it was alleged that the real beneficiary of the transaction was Muhammad Mushtaq who was a friend of defendant No.3. On the request of Muhammad Mushtaq the finance facility was availed and heβ¦
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492