Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ARIF VS Respondent: BANKING COURT, SIALKOT And Another
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Tanvir Ahmed Khan Title: MUHAMMAD ARIF vs BANKING COURT, SIALKOT And Another Case No.: Constitutional Petition No.14423 of 2000 Date of Judgment:2000-07-25 Reported As: 2001 MLD 1816 Result: Petition dismissed
Judgment ORDER Petitioner through this Constitutional petition has made a prayer that the respondent decree- holder be first directed to sell the mortgaged property and thereafter adopt any other recovery measure. I have considered the contentions. It is reflected from the perusal of petition that the petitioner took some loan in the year 1975 and mortgaged certain property. Decree in this case by the Judge Banking Court Sialkot was passed as reflected from the petition on 13-4-1993. This shows that in spite of passage of seven years the decree has not been satisfied. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to quote any provision of law whereunder the recovery proceedings can only be restricted to the mortgaged property. The respondent functionaries in the circumstances have got ample jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner in the manner provided under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances Credits and Finances) Act, 1997. Writ petition having no force is dismissed in limine.