| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2003 SLG 758 2003 SLD 758 2003 CLD 440 |
Quetta High Court
Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 15 of 2000, decision dated: 29-07-2002, hearing DATE : 15-04-2002
RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, CHIEF, JUSTICE FAZAL UR RAHMAN, JUSTICE
Syed Ayaz Zahoor for Appellants. Muhammad Riaz Ahmed for
Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 15 of 2000, decision dated: 29-07-2002, hearing DATE : 15-04-2002
RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, CHIEF, JUSTICE FAZAL UR RAHMAN, JUSTICE
Syed Ayaz Zahoor for Appellants. Muhammad Riaz Ahmed for
Respondents
EHSAN ALI ALIBHOY and 2 others
VS
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN and 5 others
Law: Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan Ordinance (XXXI of 1981)
Section: 39
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: 3
(a) Practice and procedure --Any party approaching Court has to succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the opponent's case. (b) Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan Ordinance (XXXI of 1981)--S.39 Recovery of written off loan Attachment of property Trial Court passed ad interim order regarding attachment of the property and without asking the borrower to file written statement, they were called upon by means of notice regarding confirmation of ad interim order of attachment Validity Borrowers ought to have been allowed to file written statement as no one should be condemned unheard unless and until barred by law Before passing any order under S.39(3) or S.39(4) of Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan Ordinance, 1961, the Trial Court might have examined the person making the application Trial Court, in the present case, did not comply with provisions of law and had not thoroughly studied the record so as to reach the correct conclusion rather the Court had dealt with the matter in a cursory manner Claim of the Bank was not investigated by the Trial Court in accordance with the provisions of S.39(8) of Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan Ordinance, 1961, which should have passed a proper order as per such provisions Ad interim order passed by the Trial Court was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for adjudication in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties Appeal was allowed accordingly. (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908) - S.3 Limitation Duty of Court Scope Even any party had not raised the plea of limitation, it was incumbent upon the Court to consider as to whether the suit was within time Court which was seized of the matter was to exercise jurisdiction keeping in view S.3 of Limitation Act 1908, notwithstanding the fact whether the defendant had sought dismissal of the suit by setting the plea of limitation. (d) Limitation Question of Issue of limitation being mixed question of law and fact cannot be resolved without giving opportunity to the parties to produce their respective evidence. 1998 CLC 353; 1999 YLR 123 and PLD 1985 SC 153 ref. JUDGMENT FAZAL UR RAHMAN, J. This…
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