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

Section: 9,10,22

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XLI,R.31

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

Section: 84

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 10, 9 & 22---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 84---Suit for recovery---Application for leave to defend---Banking documents---Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved---Opinion of Handwriting Expert---Adjudication by Banking Court----Scope---Defendant impugned order of Banking Court whereby its application for leave to defend, wherein he denied availing the finance facility, was dismissed while relying on opinion of a Handwriting Expert which opinion stated that signatures of defendant were same as those on banking documents---Contention of defendant, inter alia, was that Banking Court could not have dismissed defendant's application for leave to defend without giving him opportunity to cross-examine said Expert---Validity---Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 enabled Banking Court to compare signatures with others admitted/proved and said process was not employed in the present case---Opinion relied upon by Banking Court in the impugned order had not been proven in evidence and issue of authenticity of signatures could not be determined merely on opinion of an Expert and that too without framing issues or leading evidence---Impugned order was therefore not sustainable in law and dismissed, in circumstances. Shaz Packages and others v. Bank Alfalah Limited 2011 CLD 790; Muhammad Ishaque Qureshi v. Sajid Ali Khan and another 2016 SCMR 192 and Kinza Fashion (Private) Limited and others v. Habib Bank Limited and another 2009 CLD 1440 rel. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: AGHA FAISAL, J.--- The present appeal assails the leave dismissal order dated 17.10.2017 ("Impugned Order"), judgment dated 17.10.2017 ("Impugned Judgment") and decree dated 17.10.2017 rendered by the learned Banking Court V at Karachi in Suit 618 of 2011 ("Suit"). The Impugned Order had dismissed an application for leave to defend filed by the appellant and pursuant thereto the Impugned Judgment and Decree had been rendered in favour of the respondent bank and against the present appellant. The crux of the present judgment is the determination whether the learned Banking Court's…

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