| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1991 SLD 1648 = 1991 CLC 1243 |
Sindh High Court
Miscellaneous Application No.502 of 1972 in Suit No.] 13 of 1971, decided on 7th March, 1973.
Presented By: Before Ghulam Rasool K. Shaikh, J
Haider Mota for Applicant-Plaintiff. Mohsin Sidoliqui and Ismail Padhiar for
Respondents-Defendants.
Miscellaneous Application No.502 of 1972 in Suit No.] 13 of 1971, decided on 7th March, 1973.
Presented By: Before Ghulam Rasool K. Shaikh, J
Haider Mota for Applicant-Plaintiff. Mohsin Sidoliqui and Ismail Padhiar for
Respondents-Defendants.
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN --- Applicant-Plaintiff
VERSUS
TRADEWELL'(PAKISTAN) CORPORATION and 2 others --- Respondent-Defendants
Law: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans), Ordinance, 1979
Section: 6 , 7
Banking Companies (Recovery or Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)... ----Ss. 6 & 7--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OXXXVII, Rr.2 & 3-- Limitation Act . (IX of 1908), S.5---Suit for recovery of loan---Leave to defend suit---Limitation---Procedure to be adopted under OXXXVII, C.P.C. was a summary procedure, conferring certain advantages to the plaintiff and abridging the rights of defendants---Plaintiff could enforce claim on bill of exchange, hundi and promissory note by bringing a summary suit---By choosing that procedure plaintiff received an advantage that defendant was not entitled its of right to be heard in defence, but defendant must apply for leave to appear and defend suit-- When defendant failed to apply or leave was refused, plaintiff would be entitled to a decree---Depending upon circumstances, time to apply for leave could be extended in certain cases---In order to enable plaintiff to elect to file such a suit, it was condition precedent that claim must be based on documents mentioned in O.XXXVII, R. 2, C'.PC. alone and no other claim could be included in the suit-- If that condition was not fulfilled, no option would be available to plaintiff much less the summary procedure, but suit must be filed under ordinary procedure. Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)... ----Ss. 6 & 7---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OXXXVII, Rr.2 & 4--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5---Ex parte decree, setting aside of---Power of Court under OXXXVII, R. 4, C.P.C. to set -aside ex parte decree was not confirmed to those cases where defendant, did not appear in answer to the summons, but that power extended to any ex parte decree passed in a summary suit under OXXXVII, 11.2, C.P.C-7--Provision of R. 4, OXXXVII, C.P.C. was subject to the condition that. there must be some special circumstances to support any such request made by defendant, otherwise Court would not be justified to set, aside decree which had been passed ---Merits of the defence could be considered to be a special circumstance within the meaning of OXXXVII, R. 4, C.P.C.---Where summary procedure as laid down by O.XXXVII, C.P.C. was followed and defendant…