| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1999 SLG 851 1999 SLD 851 1999 CLC 671 |
Lahore High Court
Regular First Appeal No.44 of 1969, decision dated:30-10-1997
MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ AND GHULAM MAHMOOD QURESHI, JJ
Ch. Khurshid Ahmad and M.A. Farani for Appellant. Mian Muhammad Zafar Yasin and Sahibzada Anwar Hameed for
Respondents
Regular First Appeal No.44 of 1969, decision dated:30-10-1997
MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ AND GHULAM MAHMOOD QURESHI, JJ
Ch. Khurshid Ahmad and M.A. Farani for Appellant. Mian Muhammad Zafar Yasin and Sahibzada Anwar Hameed for
Respondents
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIAvsSyed MUHAMMAD ABDUL JALIL SHAH and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)------O. XXIX, R.1 & OXXXVII, Rr.l & 2---Suit for recovery of loan Competency---Suit was filed by person who was appointed attorney vide deed of attorney executed by two Directors of company and its Manager who had necessary powers to do so under Articles of Association of plaintiff/Bank---Deed of Attorney showed that person who filed suit as attorney was empowered to initiate any action on behalf of plaintiff-Bank arid to take to its final conclusion---Suit filed by attorney, in circumstances, was competently filed. The Australasia Bank Ltd. v. H.S. Mahmood Hassan Akbar PLD 1983 Kar. 431;- Ashraf Ali v. Bank of India Ltd. 1981 CLC 1582; Mahmood-urRehman Faisal v. Secretary, Ministry of Law PLD 1992 FSC 1; . Messrs Muhammad Sadio v. The Australasia Bank Ltd. PLD 1966 SC 684 and Royal British Bank v. Turquand 1856 EL & BI 327 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- --'--O. XXXVII, Rr.l & 2---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts. 116 & 132--Borrower/debtor had opened cash credit account in plaintiff-Bank in 1946, had executed mortgage deed in 1947 and suit for recovery of outstanding loan was filed by plaintiff-Bank in 1952---Relief with respect to recovery of amount lent on basis of personal covenant in mortgage deed was covered by Art. 116, Schedule to Limitation Act, 1908, while prayer regarding realization of outstanding amount of debt by sale of property in mortgage deed was covered by Art. 132 of the said Act---Plaintiff-Bank having claimed all said reliefs, suit filed by plaintiff-Bank was covered by Art. 116 or 132, Limitation Act, 1908 which had prescribed period of six years commencing from breach of registered contract arrived at between the parties---Suit filed by plaintiff-Bank within prescribed period of six years was maintainable and could not be dismissed on ground of limitation. Thiruvendipuram Chengalmma Garu and others v. Vemasani Veerarghava Naidu (1928) 114 IC 340; Sheo Das Pande v. Munj Behari and another (1928) 114 IC 813; R. Ratnasabapathy Chettiar and others v. Davasigamony Pillal AIR 1929 Mad. 53; Kishan Sahai and others v. Renumath Singh and others AIR 1929 All. 139; Ch. Kidar…
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