Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 2847 2007 SLD 2847 2007 CLD 778
Lahore High Court
R.F.A. No.16 of 2005, decision dated: 11-12-2006.
MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, JJ
Rana Abdul Majeed for Appellants.

Mst. SHAMIM TAHIRA and others

VS

. ZARAI TARAQIYATI BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. through Manager and another

Law:

Section:

(a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, (XLVI of 2001)------S. 22(1)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss.5, 29(2) & Art.156---Time-barred appeal--Provisions of S.5 Limitation Act, 1908 cannot be invoked for condonation of delay---Held, time allowed for filing first appeal under S.22(1) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, a special statute, was 30 days---Same being different from that given in Art. 156 Limitation Act, 1908, S.5 of the Act stands excluded by virtue of S.29(2) Limitation Act, 1908s. Allah Ditta v. Farooq Ahmad and 3 others PLD 1979 Lah.917; Bashir Ahmad and others v. Messrs Habib Bank Ltd. 1990 CLC 1105; Messrs Conoco Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. and 3 others v. United Bank Limited, Lahore and another 2004 CLD 472; Sheikh Muhammad Kahsif v. Askari Leasing Limited through Manager/Chief Executive of Branch/Recovery Officer 2004 CLD 1645; Ali Muhammad and another v. Fazal Hussain and others 1983 SCMR 1239; Allah Dino and another v. Muhammad Shah and others 2001 SCMR 286 ref. (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances), Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)-- ---Ss. 9 & 10---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.11---Rejection of plaint for disclosing no cause of action---Powers of court to reject plaint of its own accord---Plaintiffs filed suit against Bank pleading that they had not obtained any loan against the specified account---Leave to defend suit was granted--Averments made in the plaint showed that plaintiffs had' received from bank an amount of Rs.1,30,000 as loan under the Specified Account number---Banking Court rightly held that plaint did not disclose any cause of action as plaintiffs had admitted availing of loan facility to the tune of Rs.1,30,000 against the same loan account-Contention that bank did not file any application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. had no force because provisions of said Order nowhere ordained that a defendant must file an application for rejection of plaint and the court, before whom the lis was pending, was divested of powers from rejecting plaint of its own accord---Order VII, R.11 C.P.C, amply manifests that plaint could be rejected in certain eventualities,…
🔒
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