| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2005 SLG 1719 2005 SLD 1719 2005 CLD 1506 |
Lahore High Court
Regular First Appeal No.512 of 2002, heard on 2-06-2005.
CH. IJAZ AHMAD AND MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JJ
Mian Nasir Mehmood for
Respondent No. 1. Farzana Khan for
Respondents Nos.2 and 3.
Regular First Appeal No.512 of 2002, heard on 2-06-2005.
CH. IJAZ AHMAD AND MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JJ
Mian Nasir Mehmood for
Respondent No. 1. Farzana Khan for
Respondents Nos.2 and 3.
Messrs ARSH MASROOR PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive
VS
. Messrs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED through Manager and 3 others
Law:
Section:
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)-------S.9---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Declaration of title---Dismissal of suit---Failure to give reasons---Pendency of suit for recovery of bank loan---Borrower filed declaratory suit in Banking Court, prior to the suit filed by bank against the borrower---Banking Court dismissed the suit of borrower on the ground that he could seek any relief from the Court where the suit for recovery of bank loan was pending against him by way of submission of application for grant of leave under S.10 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---Validity---Banking Court had passed the without application of mind, therefore, the passed by Banking Court in suit filed by borrower was not sustainable in the eyes of law---Judgment and decree passed against the borrower was set aside and the case was remanded to Banking Court for decision afresh in accordance with law---Appeal was allowed accordingly. Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan and others PLD 1970 SC 173 rel. S. M. Nasim for Appellant. JUDGMENT CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.---The brief facts, out of which the present appeal arises are, that the appellant filed a suit for the declaration against the respondents in the Banking Court No.II, Faisalabad, which was dismissed by the Banking Court vide judgment dated 29-5-2002, hence the present appeal. 2. Learned counsel of the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further submits that the learned Judge has passed the impugned judgment without application of mind. He further urged that the appellant's suit is prior to the suit of the respondents, therefore, the learned Banking Court erred in law to dismiss the suit of the appellant on surmises and conjectures. 3. Learned counsel of the respondents submits that the judgment and decree of the learned Banking Court is valid as in case the suit of the respondents be allowed by the Banking…
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