| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 308 2022 SLD 308 2022 CLD 118 |
Sindh High Court
First Civil Appeals Nos. D-27 and D-28 of 2018, decision dated: 27-10-2021, hearing date: 27-10-2021
MUHAMMAD, JUNAID GHAFFAR, JUSTICE, ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, JUSTICE
Faheem Majeed Memon for Appellants (in 1st Civil Appeals Nos. D-27 and D-28 of 2018). Ashok Kumar K. Jamba for
Respondents (in 1st Civil Appeals Nos. D-27 and D-28 of 2018).
First Civil Appeals Nos. D-27 and D-28 of 2018, decision dated: 27-10-2021, hearing date: 27-10-2021
MUHAMMAD, JUNAID GHAFFAR, JUSTICE, ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, JUSTICE
Faheem Majeed Memon for Appellants (in 1st Civil Appeals Nos. D-27 and D-28 of 2018). Ashok Kumar K. Jamba for
Respondents (in 1st Civil Appeals Nos. D-27 and D-28 of 2018).
ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LIMITED THROUGH MANAGER/AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND OTHErs
VS
YASEEN DAHRI AND ANOTHER
Law: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
Section: 19,5&132
(a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--Ss. 15, 24, 9, 7 22---Limitation Act (IX of 1908) Ss. 19, 5 132---Procedure of Banking Court---Sale of mortgaged property by Financial Institution without intervention of court---Limitation period for sale of mortgaged property under S. 15 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001----Scope---Question before High Court was whether Financial Institution could take recourse under S. 15 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 for sale mortgaged property after expiry of period of limitation prescribed under Art. 132 of Limitation Act, 1908---Held, that maximum limitation to file suit for recovery under S. 9 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 was 12 years as provided by Art. 132 of Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908 and same stood expired in the present case---Contention that S. 15 of said Ordinance, was an independent remedy available for Financial Institution and same could be invoked notwithstanding expiry of period of limitation for filing suit for recovery was not valid---Recourse to said S. 15 of the Ordinance would also be hit by law of limitation inasmuch same was an alternate course of action available to Financial Institution to seek recovery of loan amount in addition to suit under S. 9 of said Ordinance---High Court observed that same period of limitation would apply to recourse under S. 15 of the Ordinance, as it did to filing of suit under S. 9 of said Ordinance---Recourse to S. 15 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 was therefore not available to appellant Financial Institution in the present case, as limitation period had expired---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. National Bank of Pakistan and 17 others v. SAF Textile Mills Ltd. and another PLD 2014 SC 283 rel. (b) Interpretation of statutes--Construction of statutes prescribing limitation---Scope---Limitation laws were statutes of repose, designed to quieten title and to bar stale and waterlogged disputes and were to be strictly complied it---Statutes of limitation by their very nature were strict and…
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