Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MST. KANIZ BIBI VS Respondent: THE MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITEDHonorable Justice JAWWAD S.KHAWAJAMalik Muhammad Azam Rasool,Abdul Majid Chaudhry
2002 C L D 312
2002 C L D 312
[Lahore]
Before Jawwad S.Khawaja and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ
Mst. KANIZ BIBI‑‑‑Appellant
Versus
THE MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED‑‑‑Respondent
Regular First Appeal No. 112 of 1994, heard on 26th November, 2001.
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)‑‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.6‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OXXXVII, R.3‑‑‑Suit for recovery of amount‑‑ Application for leave to appear and defend suit‑‑‑Banking Court dismissed the application solely on the ground that the amount required to be deposited by defendant, had not been so deposited‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Requirement of deposit of money as a condition precedent for hearing such application was wholly without legal warrant‑‑‑Application submitted by defendant could not be dismissed on such ground, rather ‑ such condition could only be imposed after hearing the defendant‑‑‑Appellate Court accepted the appeal and set aside impugned judgment and decree while observing that defendant's application for leave to appear and defend would be deemed to be pending before competent Banking Court.
Malik Muhammad Azam Rasool for Appellant.
Abdul Majid Chaudhry for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 26th November, 2001.
JUDGMENT
JAWWAD S.KHAWAJA, J.‑‑‑This appeal impugns the order dated 7‑12‑1993 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Banking Court. According to the said order, the application of the appellant/ defendant seeking leave to appear and defend, was dismissed solely on the ground that a sum of Rs.20,000 which was required to be deposited by the appellant, had not been so deposited.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that any condition, which was imposed on the applicant, could only have been so imposed after hearing the appellant. He further contends that the requirement of deposit of Rs.20,000 as a condition precedent to the hearing of the applicant's application, was wholly without legal warrant. This does appear to be correct. The application submitted by the applicant, as such, could not have been dismissed on the ground that the amount of Rs.20,000 ordered to be deposited, had not been so deposited by the appellant.
3. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is allowed. As a result, the impugned judgment and decree are set aside. The application of the appellant/defendant seeking leave to appear and defend, shall be deemed to be pending before the competent Banking Court.
4. The office shall ensure that the record of the case is sent back to the learned Banking Court within a fortnight from today.
S.A.K./K‑100/L Case remanded.