Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 CLD 656
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court
Parties: ALI HAMZA TRADING COMPANY through Managing Partner vs ALLIED BANK LIMITEDHonorable Justice Muhammad Raza QureshiMuhammad Suleman Bhatti, Iftikhar Majid and Muhammad Saqib Aziz,Saleem Iqbal
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court, officially reported as 2026 CLD 656. In this matter between ALI HAMZA TRADING COMPANY through Managing Partner and ALLIED BANK LIMITEDHonorable Justice Muhammad Raza QureshiMuhammad Suleman Bhatti, Iftikhar Majid and Muhammad Saqib Aziz,Saleem Iqbal, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
305
2026 C L D 656 [Lahore (Multan Bench)] Before Anwaar Hussain and Muhammad Raza Qureshi, JJ Messrs ALI HAMZA TRADING COMPANY through Managing Partner and others---Appellants Versus ALLIED BANK LIMITED through Principal Officers / General Attorneys---Respondent R.F.A. No.471 of 2023, heard on 29th September, 2025. Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----S. 9(5)---Suit for recovery filed by Bank---Application for leave to defend (PLA), filing of---Limitation, computing of---Date of service to defendant, exclusion of---Scope---Application for leave to defend (PLA) filed by the appellant / defendant was dismissed by the Banking Court for being time barred by one day---Validity---Under S. 9(5) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 ( the Ordinance, 2001 ), PLA is to be submitted within a period of 30-days---In the present case, since the Defendants were served through Bailiff on 06.07.2020, therefore, the time to file PLA terminated on 04.08.2020 and the Appellants filed their PLA on 05.08.2020---However, the date of service is not to be included while computing the period of limitation under the provisions of Ordinance, 2001, therefore, on said score the Banking Court erred in law to hold that PLA filed by the Appellants was barred by time, and the impugned judgment and decree merited to be set aside---High / Appellate Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree and the PLA filed by the appellants, being within time , would deemed to be pending before the Banking Court, which would decide the same afresh---Regular First Appeal was allowed accordingly. Messrs Shahi Textiles and 3 others v. Askari Bank Limited through President 2011 CLD 995 ref. Muhammad Suleman Bhatti, Iftikhar Majid and Muhammad Saqib Aziz for Appellants. Saleem Iqbal for Respondent. Date of hearing: 29th September, 2025. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD RAZA QURESHI, J.---This Regular First Appeal under Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, (the Ordinance ) calls into question Judgment dated 26.10.2022 passed by the learned Judge Banking Court, Dera Ghazi Khan, pursuant whereto interestingly, the application for leave to defend (PLA) filed by the Appellants was initially dismissed being barred by time and on the same day, through a separate interim order said PLA was dismissed for non-prosecution and yet learned Court below discussed the merits of said PLA and decided the Suit filed by the Respondent Bank on merits and decreed the same as per para-12 of the Judgment. 2. The primary question before us appears to be whether the PLA filed by the Appellants was barred by time or not as the learned Banking Court held that under Section 9(5) of the Ordinance PLA was to be submitted within a period of 30-days. Since the Defendants were served through Bailiff on 06.07.2020, therefore, the time to file PLA terminated on 04.08.2020 and the Appellants filed their PLA on 05.08.2020. The question whether the date of service is to be included while computing period of 30 days or not is not much difficult to answer as Judgment reported as Messrs Shahi Textiles and 3 others v. Askari Bank Limited through President (2011 CLD 995) and law declared by the Courts thereafter, consistently hold that the date of service is not to be included while computing the period of limitation under the provisions of the Ordinance. Therefore, on this score alone, the Impugned Judgment and Decree merit to be set aside and the learned Banking Court erred in law to hold that PLA filed by the Appellants was barred by time. 3. Consequently, we set aside the Impugned Judgment and Decree. However, the order sheet reflects that the Appellants throughout avoided hearing and the learned Banking Court though wrongly yet had been constrained to dismiss the same PLA for non-prosecution. On account of defaulting conduct of the Appellants this Appeal, is allowed subject to costs of Rs.100,000/-. The PLA filed by the Appellants is within time and same will be deemed to be pending before the learned Banking Court, who shall decide the same afresh after hearing learned counsel for the parties. Upon the request of learned counsel for the Respondent Bank, we direct learned Banking Court to decide the fate of the PLA within a period of two months. MQ/A-11/L Appeal allowed.