Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 2615 2010 SLD 2615 2010 CLD 1656
Lahore High Court
R.F.A. No. 342 of 2004, decision dated: 12-05-2009.
MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND ALI AKBAR QURESHI, JJ
Kh. Aamir Farooq for Appellant. Abdul Hameed Chohan for
Respondent.

UNION BANK LTD. through Attorney

VS

Messrs B.R.R. INTERNATIONAL MODARABA and 8 others

Law:

Section:

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)-------Ss.9, 10, 22 & 24---Suit for recovery of loan---Limitation---Application for leave to appear and defend suit---Lease finance from Modaraba Company---Guarantee was issued by the Bank assuring that in case of default by debtors, it would discharge the liability---Default having been committed by debtors, suit was filed against them as also the Bank/guarantor--Application for leave to appear and defend, by the Bank was dismissed by the Trial Court and suit was decreed against all the debtors including the Bank---Guarantee issued by the Bank had expired and suit as claimed was time-barred---Counsel for the Modarba Company had submitted that as per the provision of S.24 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, the suit could be instituted even after the expiry of limitation, when a sufficient cause was shown---Modarba Company, in its plaint had not mentioned the circumstances constituting the sufficient cause, besides that as per the provisions of O.VII, R6, C.P.C. ground of exemption of limitation had to be mentioned in the plaint---Question of limitation was considered to be a substantial question of fact and law, entitling the defendants/ debtors to the grant of leave---Impugned and decree was set aside and case was remanded to the court below to frame appropriate issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and decide the case afresh. ORDER MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---Respondents Nos.2 to 9 obtained a lease finance from respondent No.1 for which an agreement was executed between the appellant, respondent No.1 and respondents Nos.2 to 9. A bank guarantee was issued by the appellant assuring that in case of default by respondents Nos.2 to 9, it shall discharge the liability. The default was committed by respondents Nos.2 to 9, thus, a suit was filed against them as also the appellant. The appellant moved an application for leave to appear and defend which has been dismissed by the trial Court and the suit has been decreed to the tune of Rs.1,165,350 (suit amount) against all the defendants, hence this appeal. 2. Learned…
🔒
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