Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Ch. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF VS Respondent: UNITED BANK LIMITED
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, Tanvir Ahmed Khan Title: Ch. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs UNITED BANK LIMITED Case No.: C.P.L.A. No,910-L of 2000 Date of Judgment:2003-03-04 Reported As: 2005 SCMR 1108 Result: Petition dismissed
Judgment ORDER ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 22-2-2000 whereby F.A.O. No,39 of 2000 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore being hopelessly time-barred. 2. Facts briefly are that a recovery suit was filed by the respondent-Bank against Messrs Sheikh Carpet Pvt. Ltd. Which was decreed by the Judge Banking Court No,4, Lahore vide his judgment, dated 25-11-1998. The Bank filed execution application and the present petitioner filed objection petition before the learned Banking Court. The said objection petition was dismissed vide order dated 10-9-1999 being frivolous and unconvincing. Thereafter, the petitioner remained dormant and moved a miscellaneous application under section 151, C.P.C. Before the Banking Court for the deletion of the property from the execution proceedings. The said application was dismissed on 2- 2-2000. Again the petitioner went into slumber and filed appeal against the order, dated 10-9-1999 on 17-2-2000. This appeal is certainly time-barred as the order impugned was passed on 10-9- 1999 whereas certified copy thereof was obtained on 8-2-2000. The learned Division Bench while dismissing the appeal has given cogent reasons which are in the following terms: ---- "(4) We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel of the appellant/applicant and perused the record ourselves. It is admitted fact that the objection petition was dismissed vide order, dated 10-9-1999. The appellant-applicant filed application for obtaining certified copy of the order, dated 10-9-1999 on 8-2-2000 after a prescribed period for filing appeal under section 21 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advance, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997. The appeal is highly time-barred and the learned counsel of the applicant-appellant failed to point out any
---
## Page 2
sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It is settled proposition of law that nobody should be allowed to get the benefit of his own mis-deed/negligence." 3. The learned counsel has not been able to show any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment calling interference by this Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused.