Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 3418 2016 SLD 3418 2016 CLD 1828
Sindh High Court

MUNIB AKHTAR AND ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, JUSTICE

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Mst. QAIF UL WARA SAJJAD through Attorney

VS

HABIB BANK LIMITED and 2 others

Law:

Section:

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)------- --------Ss. 19(7) & 9--------Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXI, R. 58-------Suit for recovery of loan amount-------Execution of decree and sale-------Collusion between debtor and others to defeat execution proceedings-------Executing Court not bound to hold regular inquiry and frame issues on all objections-------Executing Court vested with powers to reject objection summarily for want of proof or for collusion-------Applicant/objector challenged the attachment and auction of the suit property in execution of the decree on the ground that the suit property was the ownership of her late father, and the defendant/ debtor, her mother, in connivance with the previous owner of the property, had got transferred the same in her name; therefore, the suit property was not liable to be attached and sold in execution of the decree; the Executing Court dismissed the objection petition-------Validity-------Suit property had been sold to the defendant/ debtor through a registered sale deed, on the basis of which the debtor had obtained loan as guarantor and mortgagor-------Registered document had sanctity attached to it, and stronger evidence was required to cast aspersion on its genuineness-------Banking Court, after hearing the parties, had decreed the suit for recovery of the loan, against which no appeal had been filed; thus, the and decree had attained finality-------Suit property, in execution of the decree, had already been attached and then put into auction-------Unregistered sale agreement was the only document on which the applicant/objector was relying-------Ownership could not be claimed under said sale agreement, as the same did not confer any right, interest or title in suit property-------Prior to the objections filed by the applicant/objector, her brother had also filed objections under O. XXI, R. 58, C.P.C. read with S. 19(7) of the Ordinance, which had also been dismissed by the Executing Court, and the order of dismissal, having not been challenged before any forum, had also attained finality; whereas, the applicant suppressed all said facts in present…
🔒
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