| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 575 2004 SLD 575 2004 CLD 583 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.355 of 1999 and Civil Petition No.456-L of 1999, decision dated: 14-11-2003, hearing DATE : 25-09-2003
JAVED IQBAL, JUSTICE SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, JUSTICE
Mian Nusratullah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Ozair Chughtai, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant. M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner. Ch. Abdul Wahid, Advocate Supreme Co
Civil Appeal No.355 of 1999 and Civil Petition No.456-L of 1999, decision dated: 14-11-2003, hearing DATE : 25-09-2003
JAVED IQBAL, JUSTICE SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, JUSTICE
Mian Nusratullah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Ozair Chughtai, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant. M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner. Ch. Abdul Wahid, Advocate Supreme Co
ABDUL GHAFOOR
VS
MST. HASSAN BIBI AND OTHERS
Law: Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan Ordinance (XXXI of 1961)
Section: 39
Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan Ordinance (XXXI of 1961)--S. 39---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, Rr. 58, 89 & O.XXII, R.4---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185--Suit for recovery of loan amount---Defendant died during pendency of suit---Bank did not implead all the legal heirs of deceased defendant, but impleaded only his two sons---Suit was decreed ex parte and mortgaged property was put to auction---Respondent (widow of deceased defendant) after coming to know of ex pane decree made application for deposit of decretal amount---Trial Court without deciding such application confirmed auction, but same was set aside by High Court ---Validity---No appeal for setting aside ex parte decree had been filed---Decretal amount alongwith 5% of purchase money had not been deposited---Bank had failed to bring legal heirs of deceased defendant on record, which was a mandatory requirement of law, thus, had deprived his legal heirs to defend the suit properly ---Nonimpleadment of respondent and no decision on such application had caused serious prejudice to her (the widow)---Such was a serious illegality, which could not be ignored---Sale in such circumstances could not be confirmed---Provisions of O.XXI, R.89, C.P.C., could not be made applicable as such application remained undecided---Impugned was well-reasoned and unexceptionable---Supreme Court dismissed appeal and petition filed by Bank. JUDGMENT JAVED IQBAL, J.---By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of the above-captioned Civil Appeal bearing No.355 of 1999 and Civil Petition bearing No.456-L of 1999 as both are directed against the judgment dated 26-1-1999, whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of respondent has been accepted by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore and orders dated 27-3-1997, 4-4-1997 and 31-5-1997 passed by the learned executing Court have been set aside. 2. Precisely stated the facts of the case as enumerated in the judgment impugned are to the effect that "the respondent obtained an ex parte order for the recovery of loan amounting to Rs.4,91,947 against Messrs Madina Ice Factory etc. During the pendency of the suit Talib Hussain…
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