| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2003 SLG 3431 2003 SLD 3431 2003 PLD 212 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 3076 of 2001, decided on 26th November, 2002.
SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH AND MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JJ
Ali Sibtain Fazli, Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmood A Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondent.
Civil Petition No. 3076 of 2001, decided on 26th November, 2002.
SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH AND MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JJ
Ali Sibtain Fazli, Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmood A Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondent.
Messrs KAPUR TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED
VS
BANKERS EQUITY LIMITED
Law:
Section:
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)--- ----Ss. 12 & 9(4)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908). O.XXXVII, R.2--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Suit for recovery of money was decreed ex parse---Summons were issued to the -debtor after filing the suit as required under the law and subsequently publication of the same was made in leading newspapers but none appeared---Record showed that on the date the decree was passed no one appeared before the Trial Court, nor any application for leave to defend the suit was filed, and the Banking Court decreed the suit as provided under S.9(4) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 and O.XXXVII, R.2, C.P.C. as the averments made in the plaint were verified on oath and the suit was decreed as prayed---Application for setting aside the said decree on the ground that correct address of the defendant had not been given in the plaint, therefore, the decree was not served in accordance with law---High Court dismissed the application on the ground of limitation holding that the defendant had, in fact, been served---Defendant, inter alia, contended that the Courts below had not considered the case in its true perspective; that the applications for setting aside the decree was in time and the of the High Court had resulted in miscarriage of justice and that the defendant had intimated the plaintiff (Bank) about the change of the address---Validity---Essence of the facts clearly showed that Court had adopted proper course of service of the defendant in the suit and defendant in his own wisdom moved an application before the Court for setting aside the ex parte decree which was time-barred---Judgment of the High Court was well-reasoned and was based on the proper appreciation of the material available on record--Neither question of misreading or non-reading of the material was available nor question of general public importance was involved in the case---Petition being without merit and substance was dismissed and leave to appeal was declined. JUDGMENT SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.- --Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against…
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