Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 84,95

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

Section: 10

Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (10 of 1984)-- ----Art. 84--Financial Institution (R & F) Ordinance 2001), S. 10--Leave to defend--Hand writing Expert--Comparison of signature--Appellant cannot be non-suited merely for reason that no effort was made to seek comparison of signatures from hand-writing expert, which exercise if at all intended, has to be undertaken once leave to defend is allowed, only then an interlocutory application can be filed--Even otherwise, it is within discretion of learned Judge Banking Court to seek verification of signatures by procuring report of handwriting expert for opinion upon grant of leave to defend, if it considered that substantial question of law and fact has been raised--Notwithstanding comparison of signatures, there are multiple issue which were not considered or adjudicated upon while deciding petition for leave to defend--Appellant has made out a case for grant of leave to defend, in wake of questions of law and facts raised. Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (10 of 1984)-- ----Art. 95--Presumption of truth--Documents--Validity--Respondent No. 2 is beneficiary of financing and therefore assumes greater responsibility to prove validity of document, which discharge of onus would require appellant to rebut presumption attached to documents, which are registered--All this can be achieved upon grant of leave to defend. Execution of Document-- ----Sequel of execution of documents itself makes out a case for grant of leave to defend--Alleged power-of-attorney was executed on 25.04.2002, application for grant of finance facility was submitted on 30.04.2002, sanction advice was issued on 08.05.2002, which does not make any reference to third party mortgage. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: ASIM HAFEEZ, J.- Appellant has impugned judgment and decree dated 2.2.2017 ("decree") by the learned Judge Banking Court-III, Multan, whereby petition for leave to defend the suit, filed by the appellant was dismissed, being devoid of any question of law and fact and resultantly suit was decreed accordingly. 2. Briefly, the facts necessary for adjudication of lis are that Respondent No. 1 bank filed suit for recovery of Rs.2,100,000/- against the…

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