Case Details

Citation(s)
2005 SLG 1768 2005 SLD 1768 2005 CLD 1705
Lahore High Court
Regular First Appeal No. 144 of 2005, heard on 18-04-2005.
MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JJ
Khawar Ikram Bhatti for Appellants. Ashar Ellahi for
Respondent.

ARSHAD AHMED and 2 others

VS

. TRUST COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED through Manager

Law:

Section:

(a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)-------Ss. 9(5) & 10---Recovery of bank loan---Application for leave to defend the suit---Computation of limitation period---Application filed by borrowers was dismissed being barred by limitation---Plea raised by the borrowers was that service effected through publication should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing period of limitation for filing leave application---Validity---Such plea was misconceived as S.9 (5) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, provided that service duly effected in any one of the modes mentioned therein would be deemed to be valid service and it could neither be urged nor held that leave application filed by borrowers was within time---Banking Court did not commit any illegality in passing the and decree against the borrowers---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. West Pakistan Water and Power and Development Authority v. Sohrabji & Sons and another 1986 CLC 2593; Faiz Muhammad and 2 others v. Ramzan Ali and 3 others 1989 MLD 2525; Messrs Simnwa Polypropylene (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. Messrs National Bank of Pakistan 2002 CLD 1510 and Khawaja Muhammad Bilal v. Union Bank Limited through Branch Manager 2004 CLD 1555 ref. (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----S. 9---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.120---Suit for recovery of bank loan---Maintainability---Limitation---Contention of borrower was that compromise was effected between the parties on 22-3-2001, and the suit was filed on 23-10-2004, thus the suit was time-barred---Validity---Suit filed from the date of accrual of cause of action was not out of time---Suit was maintainable in circumstances. JUDGMENT MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---The appellants, through the filing of the present appeal, have called in question judgment and decree dated 9-3-2005, whereby the learned Judge Banking Court, after finding that there is no sufficient ground for condonation of delay, dismissed appellant's application for leave to defend the suit and consequently decreed appellant's suit for recovery of sum of Rs.7,34,285 with cost ofโ€ฆ
๐Ÿ”’
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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