Law: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Section: 22 & 19(7)

(a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)------Ss.22 & 19(7)---Appeal---Maintainability---Execution of decree--�Aggrieved person---Deletion of name of appellant from the array of appellants---Effect---Said appellant being an aggrieved person, could maintain the appeal independently. H. M. Saya & Co., Karachi v. Wazir Ali Industries Ltd. Karachi PLD 1969 SC 65 fol.(b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)------S.19(7)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, R. 58--�Execution of decree---Application before Banking Court with reference to the period of limitation prescribed under O.XXI, R.58, C.P.C.---No period of limitation having been prescribed for the purpose under S.19(7), Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 objection in this behalf was not sustainable. (c) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)------Ss. 19(7) & 22---Execution of decree---Cheque earlier issued in the name of appellant which could not be encashed due to stop payment under Court's order, was issued towards the satisfaction of decree in the suit instituted by the appellant and the intervenor jointly as two partners of a firm---Decretal amount, in circumstances, to be paid during the proceedings of execution application was presumed to be for the benefit of both the plaintiffs in that suit according to their respective shares--�Banking Court, was to have first decided the question as to whether the other cheque issued by the Nazir of the High Court in the name of the Nazir of the Banking Court in respect of the same amount was for the exclusive benefit of the appellant or the intervenor, being other plaintiff in another suit was also entitled for some share in the said amount---Mere issuance of earlier cheque in the exclusive name of the appellant, which was admittedly not encashed, was not sufficient ground of the fact that only the appellant was entitled for payment of such decretal amount or that the intervenor had no claim to the same---When there was no order from the High Court on merits directing payment to the intervenor and such sum…