Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 2844 2006 SLD 2844 2006 CLD 169
Sindh High Court
Sp. H.C.A. No.175 and C.M. No.1349 of 2004, decision dated: 1st April, 2005.
SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, C.J. AND MAQBOOL BAQAR, J
Badar Alam for Appellant. Syed Mamnoon Hassan for
Respondent.

Messrs HABIB BANK LTD

VS

. Messrs BELA AUTOMOTIVES LTD

Law:

Section:

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)------Ss.9(2) & 22---Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3---High Court appeal---Maintainability ---Bank had filed appeal against order whereby Single Judge of High Court while granting leave to defend suit filed by Company against Bank for accounts, injunction, declaration and damages had framed issues---Maintainability of said appeal was objected to on the ground that in terms of S.22(1) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 an appeal could only be filed against a , decree, sentence or a final order, passed by a Banking Court and not against interim order---Single Judge, through impugned order had merely granted to the appellant leave to appear and defend suit and had framed issues for final adjudication of the suit---Said order passed by Single Judge, could not be said a final order"---In view of provisions of S.22 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 which had placed a clear bar on filing of an appeal against an interlocutory order which did not dispose of entire case before Banking Court, appeal being not maintainable was dismissed. ORDER The above appeal has been filed by the appellant-Bank against the order dated 12-5-2004 whereby a learned Single Judge of this Court while granting unconditional leave to defend Suit No.B-90 of 2001, filed by the respondent-Company against the appellant-Bank for accounts, injunction, declaration and damages, framed five issues. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the pliant in the above suit was not accompanied by a separate statement of account as required by section 9(2) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "the Ordinances"), the learned Single Judge ought to have rejected the plaint, as on 8-5-2002 a preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the respondents above suit was framed in the suit. Mr. Syed Mamnoon Hassan, the learned counsel for the respondents at the very outset objected to the maintainability of the above appeal. He submitted that in terms of section 22(1) of the Ordinance, an appeal can only…
🔒
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