Case Details

Citation(s)
2019 SLG 2810 2019 SLD 2810 2019 CLD 1222
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 381-K of 2019, decision Dated: 07-08-2019. (Against the judgment Dated 18.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in First Appeal No. 14 of 2015)
GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Haseeb Jamali, Advocate Supreme Court and Ghulam Rasool Mangi, Advocate-on-Record
Respondent(s) by: K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record No.1. Liaquat Hussain Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advoate-on-Record No.5.

NAZLI HILAL RIZVI

VS

BANK ALFALAH LTD. AND OTHERS

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

Section: 9,19(1),22

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXI,R.90

(a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 9 & 22---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXI, R. 90---Auction proceedings---Objection petition regarding non-serving of notice at address outside Pakistan and not following other legal requirements necessary for the auction---Paper book of present case contained copies of notices that were sent in the execution proceedings to the petitioner/ debtor at the address on which she was served when summons was issued in the suit---Said notices included notice for attachment of the mortgaged property, notice for settling the terms of proclamation of sale and notice for sale of the mortgaged property---Thereafter, auction notice was also published in two leading newspapers---Petitioner's address in the suit was her residence in city "K" of Pakistan on which the summons was served and she also filed her leave to defend the said application, thus, it was the petitioner's obligation to place on record her new address for any future service on her, if at all such service was required by law, which she did not do---Advocate who represented the petitioner and other debtors in the suit also continued to appear before the Banking Court even after conversion of suit into execution proceedings that finally culminated in the sale of the mortgaged property---Hence, the petitioner could not feign ignorance about the periodical developments that took place in the proceedings---Question of non-service to the petitioner did not arise at all---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly. (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 9 & 22---Suit for recovery of loan---Decree by Banking Court---Execution proceedings---Notice not required---Section 19 (1) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 had done away with the general requirement of instituting fresh proceedings for the execution of the decree as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908---After the banking suit was decreed, the proceedings did not come to an end but stood automatically converted into execution proceedings for which no fresh notice…
🔒
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