Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS Respondent: ROSE TEXTILE MILLS LTD.
1988 C L C 1195
1988 C L C 1195
[Karachi]
Before Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, J
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑Petitioner
versus
Messrs ROSE TEXTILE MILLS LTD. and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 987 of 1987 in Judicial Miscellaneous No. 56 of 1987, decided on 27th July, 1987.
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑
‑‑‑0. VII, R. 11‑‑Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan Ordinance (XXXI of 1961), S.39‑‑Rejection of plaint, application for‑‑Office of defendant /borrower admittedly was at place 'K' where loan was disbursed and agreement to that effect was also executed between defendant and plaintiff‑Bank‑‑Suit filed by plaintiff‑Bank against defendant at place 'K', held, was maintainable even if assets and installations of defendant were at a place other than Face 'K'‑= Application filed by defendant for rejection of plaint on ground that suit at place 'K' was not maintainable as all assets and installations of defendant were at place 'B', was dismissed in circumstances.
Anwar Mansoor for Petitioner.
Ahmed Farooqui for Respondents.
ORDER
Mr. Ahmed Farooqui has filed on behalf of respondent No.l, alongwith an application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. read with section 39(8) of I.D.B.P. Ordinance, 1961, for rejection of plaint. It is contended by Mr. Farooqui, that all the assets and installations of respondent No.l are at Bahawalpur, and therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction. In support he has relied upon the provisions of subsection (1) of section 3g. which provides, that 'an officer of the Bank, generall` or specia114 authorised by the Board in this behalf, mad‑ apply to the District Judge within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the concern carries on the whole or substantial part of its business or where exists the office or the branch of bank from which loan was disbursed.
It is contended by Mr. Anwar Mansoor learned Advocate for the applicant, that the loan was disbursed at Karachi and the agreement of loan Annexure 'A' was executed by respondent No.l at Karachi, and in this agreement respondent No.l is shown to be having its office at Karachi. The application is not supported by any affidavit as according to Mr. Farooqui, he has relied upon the facts in the plaint and, therefore, there is no need of any affidavit. As the office of respondent No.l is at Karachi, and the agreement has also been executed at Karachi, where the loan was disbursed, the suit is A maintainable.
Under these circumstances the application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. is dismissed.
H.B.T./I‑41/K Application dismissed.