Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 869 2017 SLD 869 2017 LHC 1920
Lahore High Court
Case No: Ex. A. No. 2/2011. Date of hearing 09.05.2017
ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, JUSTICE
Objector/ judgment debtor by: Mr. Muhammad Waseem Shahab, Advocate Decree holder Bank/respondent by: Mr. Muhammad Saleem Iqbal, Advocate

NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN

VS

. ALAZHAR TEXTILE MILLS LTD & OTHERS

Law:

Section:

THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, JUSTICE:---.--- OBJECTION PETITION/C.M. No.101-C/2015. This objection petition under sections 47 and 48 read with order XXI rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") and section 7(6) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 ("Ordinance") has been filed on behalf of judgment debtor company for rejection of titled execution petition. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant/judgment debtor submits that the execution petition is grossly barred by time. He explained that consent decree was passed on 02.07.1999 whereas execution was filed on 27.04.2011. He submits that first execution could be filed within period of three years from the passing of the decree and second execution could be filed within maximum period of six years, hence this execution is liable to be dismissed. He placed reliance on National Bank of Pakistan vs. Gammon of Pakistan Ltd. (2009 CLD 330) and National Bank of Pakistan through S.V.P. SAMG (North) vs. Messrs Taj Textile Mills Ltd. through Chief executive and 4 others (2011 CLD 157). Learned counsel further submits that consent decree dated 02.07.1999 was passed under Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credit and Finances) Act, 1997 ("Act") whereas execution is filed under the Ordinance which is not maintainable. He further submits that under section 7(6) of the Ordinance, only pending proceedings were to be transferred to the Banking Court under the Ordinance, whereas this execution petition being not pending at relevant time cannot be executed under the provision of the Ordinance but only Civil Court has jurisdiction in the matter. He further submits that after consent decree dated 02.07.1999, parties have entered into fresh agreement dated 10.08.2005 whereby fresh terms and conditions of Demand Finance II (DF II) and Demand Finance III (DF III) were agreed, therefore, the consent decree dated 02.07.1999 has been novated. He further submits that the decree dated 02.07.1999 being already novated, the only remedy available with the decree holder bank is to file fresh suit and not to seek execution of decree. Reliance is placed on Peer Dil and others vs.…
🔒
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