Law: Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)

Section: 6,11

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXI,R.52

Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)--Ss. 6 & 11---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, R.52---Execution of decree- -Objection petition, dismissal of---Factual controversy---Failure to record evidence--¬Contention of the objector was that the attached property was never mortgaged in favour of the Bank and just to protect the interest of the -debtor and original mortgagor, the property was attached whereas the original mortgagor was not even impleaded in the suit---Banking Court dismissed the objection petition without even recording the evidence---Validity---Contentions raised by the objector were not considered by the Banking Court and the same was decided only in view of the stand point of the Bank---Crucial question as to whether the property was mortgaged in favour of the Bank by the mortgagor needed determination through production of evidence---Without recording the evidence of the parties, such factual controversy could not be resolved on hearing the parties only---Banking Court was not bound to mechanically record the evidence of the objector in each and every case--¬Banking Court had to see in individual cases as to whether a particular case warranted the recording of evidence or not and whether the objection petition had been filed frivolously, contumaciously or to delay the proceedings or it was a genuine application---Primarily it was the function of the Banking Court to decide as to whether the objection petition was to be decided after recording of evidence or only after hearing the parties---Present was a case where the objector should have been allowed an opportunity to produce evidence to establish his claim as put forth in his objection petition regarding attachment and sale of the property in execution of decree passed against the borrowers---Order passed by the Banking Court on objection petition was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Court below for decision afresh on the objection petition. Mst. Surayya Begum v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and 4 others PLD 1990 Lah. 4 ref. JUDGMENT MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---Muhammad Anwar Khan, the appellant/objector, through the filing of the present appeal, has called in question…

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