Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS Respondent: BOLAN BANK LIMITEDHonorable Justice SYED JAMSHED ALIShahid Ikram Siddiqui,Bashir Ahmad
2005 C L D 1567
2005 C L D 1567
[Lahore]
Before Syed Jamshed Ali and Muhammad Ghani, JJ
MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others--- Appellants
Versus
BOLAN BANK LIMITED---Respondent
E.F.A. No.285 of 2002, heard on 5th November, 2003.
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)---
----Ss. 9, 19 & 22---Suit for recovery of loan---Execution of decree---Suit by Bank was decreed and decree-holder had sought execution of decree by arrest and detention of appellants/ judgment-debtors as they did not appear despite they were served through registered post and it was reported that two judgment-debtors were living in Karachi and one of them had died and two judgment-debtors were employed abroad---Appeal to the extent of deceased judgment-debtor had become infructuous-Appeal was not pressed to the extent of two judgment-debtors who were working abroad---Only one of the judgment-debtors, who was Chief Executive of Company, was available who would appear before Executing Court in response to show-cause notice---Decree-holder had no objection provided said judgment-debtor would furnish adequate security to the satisfaction of Executing Court for his appearance---Appeal was disposed of with consent of parties in terms that said judgment-debtor would appear before Executing Court within specified period, and would submit security to the satisfaction of Executing Court for his appearance when required.
Shahid Ikram Siddiqui for Appellants.
Bashir Ahmad for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 5th November, 2003.
JUDGMENT
SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.---The respondent-decree-holder sought execution of the decree by arrest and detention of the appellants. The learned Executing Court issued a show-cause notice on 29-7-2000 which was not served. According to the record the show-cause notice was served through registered post acknowledgement due on 3-11-2001 but the appellants did not appear and accordingly arrest warrants of the appellants were issued. It was reported that out of the four judgment-debtors, Ghulam Abbas and Faiz Ahmad appellants 2 and 3 were living in Karachi while Riaz Ahmad and Muhammad Iqbal appellants 1 and 4, had gone abroad. Accordingly, fresh warrants were issued on 12-4-2002. This order has been assailed in this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that Faiz Ahmad appellant No.3 has died. Therefore, to his extent this appeal has become infructuous. As far as appellants 1 and 4 are concerned, the learned counsel submits that they are employed in Saudi Arabia and, therefore, this appeal is not pressed to the extent of the said appellants. He further submits that Ghulam Abbas, former Chief Executive of the Company, appellant No.2, is available and he will appear before the learned Executing Court in response to the show-cause notice. The learned counsel for the decree-holder-Bank has no objection provided appellant No.2 furnishes adequate security to the satisfaction of the learned Executing Court for his appearance before the said learned Court till the application of the respondent for arrest and detention of the judgment-debtors in execution of the decree is decided.
3. This appeal is accordingly disposed of with the consent of the parties, in terms that appellant No.2 shall appear before the learned Executing Court within a period of 15 days, submit security to the satisfaction of the learned Executing Court for his appearance and thereafter the application of the decree holder-Bank for execution of the decree by arrest and detention of the judgment-debtors shall be decided in accordance with law. In case the undertaking being given before this Court is complied with by the appellant, the warrants issued against him shall not be executed.
5. As far as appellants Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are concerned, this appeal is dismissed.
H.B.T./M-2382/L Order accordingly.