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

Section: 9,10,22

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 9, 10 & 22---Suit for recovery of finance---Leave to defend the suit---Limitation, non-consideration of---Effect---Application for leave to defend the suit filed by appellant/defendant was dismissed due to non-prosecution resultantly Banking Court decreed the suit in favour of respondent/plaintiff---Validity---It was not mandatory for Banking Court to decree the suit in favour of respondent/plaintiff upon default of appellant/defendant due to his absence---Even if appellant/defendant failed to file application for leave to defend or had failed to file it in a timely manner leading to its dismissal unless delay was condoned, it was bounden duty of Banking Court to apply its mind to see if respondent/plaintiff had made out a case for decree of the matter---Appellant/defendant's leave application was dismissed by Banking Court simply on account of non-prosecution without considering whether any substantial question of law or fact had arisen therefrom---Banking Court failed to discharge its duty under the law and had adopted procedure alien to the one envisaged in S. 10 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---It was the Banking Court which while considering petition for leave to appear and defend the suit should have considered and rendered its findings as to whether it was timely filed---High Court in appellate jurisdiction declined to determine whether petition for leave to appear and defend the suit was time barred or not, as Banking Court failed to consider petition filed by appellant/defendant---High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Banking Court as it suffered from legal infirmity and the matter was remanded to Banking Court to decide petition for leave to appear and defend the suit afresh---Appeal was allowed accordingly. Messrs Bahawalpur Cotton Company v. United Bank Limited 2023 CLD 1116; Oil and Gas Development Company Limited v. Muhammad Ilyas Mian 2018 CLC 1666; Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) v. Mst. Naima Ayub 2013 CLC 1191; Abid Aziz Khan v. Bank of Punjab 2007 CLD 997; Syed Asad Abbas v. Allied Bank of…

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