Case Details

Citation(s)
2005 SLG 1565 2005 SLD 1565 2005 CLD 389
Lahore High Court
R.F.A. No.495 of 1999, decision dated: 28-04-2004.
CH. IJAZ AHMAD AND FARRUKH LATIF, JJ
Mian Nusrat Ullah for Appellant. Sheikh Asif Feroze for
Respondents.

NAEEM YASIN --Appellant

VS

. UNITED BANK LIMITED through MUHAMMAD NASEEM, MANAGER and another --Respondents

Law:

Section:

Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997) S. 7 General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24 A Powers of Banking Court Scope Duty of Banking Court is to decide case with application of judicial mind, which is condition precedent Under S.24 A, General Clauses Act, 1897, public functionaries are duty bound to decide controversy between the parties with reasons Section 24 A of Act, 1897 is procedural in nature and has retrospective effect. Mollah Ejahar Ali's case PLD 1970 SC 173; Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager 1998 SCMR 2268 and Zain Yar Khan v. The Chief Engineer 1998 SCMR 2419 rel. ORDER The brief facts out of which the present appeal arises are that the respondent Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs.317,537 against the appellant before the Banking Court No.2, Lahore. The appellant filed application for leave to defend the suit raising legal and factual objections qua the liabilities upon the appellant of the respondent Bank. The respondent Bank submitted reply of the application. The Banking Court dismissed the application for leave to defend and decreed the suit of the respondent Bank vide impugned judgment and decree dated 9 8 1999. Hence this appeal. 2. Learned counsel of the appellant submits that appellant has specifically taken pleas about legal and factual controversy in the application for leave to defend the suit and specific ground was taken in the application in para. 14 that vehicle in question was sold by the respondent Bank amounting to Rs.375,000 and this amount was not mentioned by the respondent-Bank in the contents of the plaint and was not specifically denied in the reply of the application. He further submits that this amount is not depicted from the statement, of account. He further submits that statement of account was not according to. Bankers Book of Evidence Act, 1891. 3. Learned counsel of the respondent Bank submits that respondent Bank has mentioned this fact in para.4 of the plaint and also denied in reply of para. 14 of the application for leave to defend the suit. He further submits that respondent "has conducted the auction in which the vehicle in question was sold…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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