Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 2818 2007 SLD 2818 2007 CLD 521
Lahore High Court
R.F.A. No.441 of 2006, decision dated: 11-01-2007.
SH. AZMAT SAEED AND UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JJ
Mushtaq Ahmad Khan for Appellant. Syed Murad Ali Shah Bukhari for
Respondent-Bank.

HAMAYUN

VS

. ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LIMITED through Manager

Law:

Section:

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)------Ss.9 & 10-Recovery of bank loan---Leave to defend the suit---Denial of loan---Grievance of defendant was that bank had used documents of loan which had already been paid off---Validity---Certificate of mortgage pertained to year, 1992, and pertained to different loan which was not the subject matter of the suit filed by bank--Bank's case was not that the mortgage was created in year, 1992 and was to continue for future loans including loans in issue---Defendant had denied execution of loan agreement and other charge documents---Defence of defendant had not been considered in its true perspective so as to conclude whether defendant was entitled to leave to defend the suit whether conditional or otherwise---Judgment and decree passed by Banking Court could not be sustained and was set aside---Case was remanded to Banking Court, where application for leave to defend filed by defendant would be deemed pending and would be adjudicated upon afresh after hearing both the parties ---Appeal was allowed accordingly. ORDER This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22-6-2006 passed by the Banking Court No.1, Faisalabad, whereby the suit filed by the respondent against the appellant was decreed. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the respondent-Bank filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.8, 52,103 along with return and the liquidated damages. Pursuant to a notice the appellant entered appearance and filed his application for leave to defend the suit. The Banking Court seized of the matter dismissed the said application and vide the impugned judgment decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.5,12,225 along with cost of funds. 3. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record of the Banking Court has been perused. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in fact the appellant had obtained a loan from the respondent-Bank in 1992 which had been repaid and the documents pertaining to the said loan have been utilized to initiate the present suit which is allegedly based on a loan advanced in 1995. It is contended that the…
🔒
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