| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 160 2024 SLD 160 2024 CLD 141 |
Sindh High Court
First Appeal No. 80 of 2023, decided on 25th October, 2023.Date of hearing: 25th October, 2023.
Before Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Jawad Akbar Sarwana, JJ
Zulfiqar Ali Khan for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondent/Faisal Bank Ltd.
First Appeal No. 80 of 2023, decided on 25th October, 2023.Date of hearing: 25th October, 2023.
Before Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Jawad Akbar Sarwana, JJ
Zulfiqar Ali Khan for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondent/Faisal Bank Ltd.
MUHAMMAD SHEHZAD---Appellant
VS
FAISAL BANK LIMITED and another---Respondents
Law: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
Section: 9,22,27
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 12(2)
(a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 9, 22 & 27---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)---Recovery suit---Fraud or misrepresentation asserted before the Banking Court---Appellant-customer filed an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. to set aside the judgment and decree--- Contention of the appellant/customer was that a fraud had been played on the Banking Court by not mentioning his correct up-to-date address in the title of the plaint, consequently, no valid service was effected on him---Validity---Service might be effected under S. 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 ('FIO 2001'), by any one of the modes mentioned therein---Record revealed that in the present case service was effected through all modes on the appellant/customer, and he was bound to file his leave to defend application within 30 days from service of summons---Section 9 of the FIO, 2001 stipulated that any one of the modes was a valid service provided such service was effected in the manner prescribed by the Appendix to the Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Appellant/customer did not argue/challenge that service was not affected as provided for in S. 9(5) of the FIO, 2001, in the manner prescribed by the Appendix to the C.P.C., but merely claimed that he did not receive a copy of the summons as the address mentioned in the title of the plaint was incorrect---Appellant/customer did not file leave to defend application and consequently, the Banking Court passed the judgment and decree---Appellant/customer did not prefer any appeal against the said judgment and decree under S. 22 of the FIO, 2001---Appeal filed by the customer was dismissed, in circumstances. Muhammad Amir Safdar v. The Bank Al-Falah Limited through Manager and 2 others 2021 CLC 428 ref. (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 9, 22 & 27---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)---Recovery suit---Execution proceedings---Fraud or misrepresentation alleged by the customer/judgment-debtor---Scope---Appellant/customer (defendant/judgment-debtor), during execution proceedings, filed an application…
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