| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 3424 2016 SLD 3424 2016 CLD 1903 |
Sindh High Court
AZIZ-UR-REHMAN, JUSTICE
Aijaz Hussain Shirazi and Hashmatullah Aleem for Plaintiff.Salman J. Mirza and Omer Memon for Defendants.
AZIZ-UR-REHMAN, JUSTICE
Aijaz Hussain Shirazi and Hashmatullah Aleem for Plaintiff.Salman J. Mirza and Omer Memon for Defendants.
PAK OMAN INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED--PlaintiffVSCHENAB LIMITED AND 9 others----Defendants
Law:
Section:
(a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)------- --------Ss. 9 & 10--------Bankers' Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S. 2(8)-------Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A-------Recovery of bank loan, suit for------- Maintainability-------Leave to defend, refusal of-------Rejection of plaint-------Lacuna left in suit not curable through replication-------'Certified copy' of statement of account-------Ingredients-------Statement of account not certified in terms of S. 2(8) of Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891-------Effect-------Territorial jurisdiction of Banking Court-------Scope-------Friction of cause of action also gave jurisdiction to Banking Court-------Right to fair trial-------High Court rejected the plaint and dismissed leave application for non-compliance with mandatory requirements: Plaintiff, in the present case, contended that if any lacuna was left at the time of filing of the suit, the same could be cured at the stage of filing of the replication to the defendants' leave to defend application. High Court held that contention was misconceived and misleading, as the defendants to the knowledge of the plaintiff, had no opportunity to suitably rebut the new built-up case and/or all other documents, which had been brought on record through replication. Mandatory requirements of section 9 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001, in no way, could be postponed, or otherwise, rectified subsequently by way of replication. Opportunity, as given to the plaintiff in terms of section 10(7) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001, was a limited opportunity, that was only to the extent of reply in answer to the leave to defend application. Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001, being special law, provisions thereof would override all other laws and as such the same need to be strictly complied with. Giving weight to the case built-up and to documents brought on record through replication, would also be against the concept of fair trial and due process as mandated by Article 10-A of the Constitution. Provisions of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of…