Case Details

Citation(s)
2003 SLG 752 2003 SLD 752 2003 CLD 316
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.4024 of 2002, decision dated: 3rd October, 2002
NAZIR AHMED SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, JUSTICE
M. Saleem Iqbal for Petitioner.

GHULAM RASOOL

VS

THE JUDGE BANKING COURT NO.III, MULTAN and 3 others

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--Art. 199 Constitutional petition Maintainability Interim order Scope Such order cannot be interfered with in Constitutional Jurisdiction of High Court, particularly when the same also relates to an interim matter i.e. temporary injunction which too has yet not been disposed of finally. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 199 Constitutional petition Maintainability-Interim order Objection was filed in execution proceedings of decree passed by Banking Court Grievance of the objection petitioner was that he had neither acquired loan from the Bank nor he was a guarantor and the property owned by him was also not mortgaged with the Bank, therefore, his property could not be attached in execution of the decree Executing Court passed interim injunction against execution of the decree subject to deposit of decretal amount by way of security plea raised by the objection petitioner was that the Executing Court could not impose condition for grant of temporary injunction Validity Matter of grant of temporary injunction was still before the Executing Court at initial stage and the Court was Justified to pass an injunctive order subject to the condition of depositing the decretal amount by way of security--Condition was imposed by the Executing Court in the peculiar circumstances of the case by exercising its Jurisdiction judiciously Awarding a relief under Art 199 of the Constitution was discretionary High Court declined to interfere with the condition imposed by the Executing Court Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine. Abbasia Cooperative Bank (now Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank Ltd.) through Manager and another v. Hakeem Hafiz Muhammad Ghaus and 5 others PLD 1997 SC 3 distinguished. ORDER Respondent No.2 (hereinafter also called the decree-holder) instituted a suit against respondents 3 and 4 (hereinafter also called the judgment debtors) for recovery of Rs.6,20,884 alongwith the agreed mark up thereupon, arising out of the loan under the Transport Finance Hyundai Scheme. This suit was decreed by the learned Judge Banking Court, Multan (hereinafter also called respondent No. 1) "to the tune of Rs.5,94,000 with…
🔒
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