| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2000 SLG 2226 2000 SLD 2226 2000 PLD 46 |
Sindh High Court
High Court. Appeals Nos. 10 of 1994, -146 of 1955 and First Appeal No. 69 of 1995, decided on 5th May, 1999. DATE of hearing: 21st April, 1999
RANA BHAGWAN DAS AND SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J
Sajjad Halai for Appellant (in H.C.As. Nos. 10 of 1994 and 1st Appeal No. 69 of 1995) Nemo for
Respondents (in H.C.A. No. 10 of 1994 and 1st Appeal No. 69 of 1995). Muhammad Zubair Qureshi for Appellant (in H.C.A. No. 146 of 1995). Shafaat Hussain for Re
High Court. Appeals Nos. 10 of 1994, -146 of 1955 and First Appeal No. 69 of 1995, decided on 5th May, 1999. DATE of hearing: 21st April, 1999
RANA BHAGWAN DAS AND SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J
Sajjad Halai for Appellant (in H.C.As. Nos. 10 of 1994 and 1st Appeal No. 69 of 1995) Nemo for
Respondents (in H.C.A. No. 10 of 1994 and 1st Appeal No. 69 of 1995). Muhammad Zubair Qureshi for Appellant (in H.C.A. No. 146 of 1995). Shafaat Hussain for Re
HABIB BANK LTD.
VS
REMIFAR (PAKISTAN) LTD. and 5 others--Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: Order34,Rule4,48
Law: Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972
Section: 6
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: 183,181,182
(a) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)--- ----S. 6---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 48 & O.XXXIV, R.4--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts.181 & 183---Suit for recovery of loan--Execution of decree---Limitation---One of the suits filed by the Bank was decreed by Special Court (Banking) and application for execution of said decree was filed before Court decreeing suit after more than five years from passing of final decree---Decree has been passed by Court other than High Court limitation for purpose of making application for execution could only be governed by Art. 181, Limitation Act, 1908, providing three years' period of limitation--Application for execution of decree passed after more than five years, was rightly dismissed being barred by limitation---Decree in second suit, though was passed by High Court, but said decree was not passed by High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction but was passed exercising jurisdiction of District Court because value of suit was above the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Court concerned---Execution application filed after more than five years from date of passing of final decree, was; also liable to be dismissed being barred by time as Art. 181, Limitation Act, 1908 providing three years' limitation was applicable instead of Art. 183 of Limitation Act providing six years' limitation---decree in third suit had bee passed by High Court in exercise of its "original civil jurisdiction" ---Article 183 of Limitation Act, 1908 provided six years' limitation for execution of decree passed by High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, application for execution of the decree filed after more than five years, but before six years from passing of said decree, could not be dismissed as barred by time. Mehboob Khan v. Hassan Khan Durrani PLD 1990 SC 77 ; Razzak v. Usman PLD 1975 Kar. 944; State Life Insurance v. S.A. Aziz Rizv PLD 1986 Kar. 79; Ahmed Khan v. Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court of West Pakistan PLD 1968 SC 171 and Mian Akber Hussain v. Aisha Bai PLD 1991 SC 985 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-- ----S.…
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