| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 2489 2021 SLD 2489 2021 MLD 1230 |
Sindh High Court
First Appeal No.08 of 2011, decided on 3rd October, 2013, Dates of hearing: 13th, 17th and 27th September, 2013.
NADEEM AKHTAR, JUSTICE, AFTAB AHMED GORAR, JUSTICE
Abdul Shakoor for Appellant. For
Respondent No.4 (called absent). Khaleeq Ahmed for
Respondent No.5.
First Appeal No.08 of 2011, decided on 3rd October, 2013, Dates of hearing: 13th, 17th and 27th September, 2013.
NADEEM AKHTAR, JUSTICE, AFTAB AHMED GORAR, JUSTICE
Abdul Shakoor for Appellant. For
Respondent No.4 (called absent). Khaleeq Ahmed for
Respondent No.5.
S.M.E. LEASING LIMITED
VS
MESSRS HILTON PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD.AND 4 OTHERS
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 58
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XXI, R. 58---Investigation of claims to, and objections to attachment of, attached property---Scope assailed the order passed by Executing Court whereby the objectors/respondents application under O.XXI, R.58, C.P.C., was allowed and the attachment order was recalled---Held, that both respondent and -debtor were holding original indenture of lease in respect of the property had produced the registered power of attorney executed by -debtor as well as the registered sale deed executed by her attorney in his favour---Perusal of impugned order showed that during investigation of the claim/objections of respondent, when Sub-Registrar was being examined, it did not come on record through him as to which of the indentures of lease was genuine and whether or not the purported power of attorney executed by -debtor was genuine and registered---Claim/objections of respondent could not be decided completely and effectually without ascertaining the genuineness of said documents---Impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Executing Court for deciding the application afresh---Appeal was disposed of accordingly. ORDER NADEEM AKHTAR, J.---- This First Appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance XLVI of 2001, against the order passed on 24.12.2010 by the learned Banking Court No.V, Karachi, in Execution Application No.16/2007, whereby the application filed by the objector / respondent No.5 under Order XXI, Rule 58, C.P.C. was allowed, and the earlier order of attachment of immovable property was recalled. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellant, which is a financial institution, filed Suit No.353/2006 against the first four respondents for recovery of Rs.3,755,178/-, which was decreed in the sum of Rs.3,230,602/- with costs vide judgment and decree dated 26.03.2007 and 03.04.2007, respectively. The appellant filed Execution Application No.16/2007 for execution of the said decree. As the judgment debtors did not oppose the Execution Application, writ of attachment and sale proclamation were issued in respect of the purportedly…
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