Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 1447 2017 SLD 1447 2017 CLD 538
Lahore High Court
R.F.A. No. 907 of 2013, 08/12/2016
SHAHID KARIM, JUSTICE, JAWAD HASSAN, 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

ASIM RIAZ QURESHI

VS

BANK ALFALAH LIMITED

Law: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Section: 22

THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: JAWAD HASSAN, JUSTICE:---.--- This appeal before the Court is filed under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (the Ordinance of 2001) against judgment and decree passed on 07.08.2013 whereby the suit filed by the Respondent Bank was decreed to the tune of Rs. 17,94,618.61/- along with cost of funds. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant approached the Respondent Bank for Home Finance Facility for the purchase of Plot No. 12/2, Block-F, Punjab Small Industries Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Lahore measuring 14 marlas (the "Plot") and construction thereon and the Bank allowed the same to the Appellant to the tune of Rs. 2,000,000/- and disbursed an amount of Rs. 7,20,000/- to the Appellant on 20.09.2004 for the purchase of Plot and remaining amount of Rs. 12,80,000/- for construction thereon. It is further alleged that the Appellant executed certain documents for securing the Finance Facility in favour of Respondent Bank. On default of payment amounting to Rs. 18,41,930/- the Respondent Bank filed a suit for recovery of the said amount against the Appellant in which the respective Judge of the Banking Court, after hearing the parties and perusal of record, decreed the suit of the Respondent. Bank to the tune of Rs. 17,94,618.61/- vide impugned judgment and decree. 3. Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the Banking Court has passed the impugned judgment and decree in sheer violation of 2001 Ordinance. Learned counsel further contended that the Court below has failed to take into consideration that the agreements dated 02.09.2004 and 22.02.2005 and the mortgage documents had become void upon disclosure of fraud qua the Plot. 4. The counsel for the Appellant stated that he purchased the Plot after the Bank acceded his request and only after the approval of his request of the finance, he entered into an agreement to sell with the seller of the Plot but with the condition that the legal opinion on the title of the Plot will come from Bank's approved lawyer. After the approval given by the lawyer of the Bank, the Appellant purchased the Plot on 21 September 2004. The…
🔒
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