Section 21 : Indemnity
2017 CLD 380 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ADAMJEE POLYCRAFT LIMITED VS NATIONAL INVESTMENT TRUST LIMITED
Ss. 9 & 21—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 126—Recovery of finance—Contract of guarantee—Liability of guarantor/surety—Appellants were sponsors of principal borrower company—Suit for recovery of finance was decreed by Banking Court in favour of Bank against principal borrower and its sponsors—Validity—Sponsors, undertaking was an integral part of agreement and the same had to be read in conjunction with agreement entered between principal borrower company and Bank—Sponsors could not absolve themselves from the liability accruing and arising on principal borrower company to be its liability only—Sponsors were co-extensively liable to payout liability of principal borrower company—Terms of sponsors’ agreement duly signed had to be read in conjunction with main agreement entered between principal borrower company and Bank—High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Banking Court, as there was no legal infirmity found—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
2016 CLD 2125 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HABIB AHMED VS MEEZAN BANK LIMITED
Ss. 9 & 21—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 176—Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss.2(32) & 62—Suit for recovery of bank loan—Pawnee’s right—Offer of shares/debentures for sale—Banking Court decreed suit in favour of Bank—Plea raised by borrower was that Bank had not issued notice under S.176 of Contract Act, 1872 and could not sell shares without approval of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan—Validity—If notice by pawnee to pawnor had stated that in case of default of payment of debt within time stipulated, pledged shares would be sold out by pawnee, it was sufficient compliance of requirement of S.176 of Contract Act, 1872—Plaintiff Bank duly made compliance of S.176 of Contract Act, 1872 before exercising its right to sell pledged shares of borrower—Plaintiff was a scheduled Bank in terms of S.2(32) of Companies Ordinance, 1984 and it had obtained shares from borrower as security to finance facility availed by him, in normal course of its banking business—Requirement of seeking approval from Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan was not applicable to plaintiff-Bank in view of S. 62(5) of Companies Ordinance, 1984—High Court did not find any infirmity in judgment and decree passed by Banking Court in favour of plaintiff Bank—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
2016 CLC 1561 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HABIB AHMED VS MEEZAN BANK LIMITED
176—Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss.2(32) & 62—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), Ss. 9 & 21—Pawnee’s right—Offer of shares/debentures for sale—Banking Court decreed suit in favour of Bank—Plea raised by borrower was that Bank had not issued notice under S.176 of Contract Act, 1872 and could not sell shares without approval of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan—Validity—If notice by pawnee to pawnor had stated that in case of default of payment of debt within time stipulated, pledged shares would be sold out by pawnee, it was sufficient compliance of requirement of S.176 of Contract Act, 1872—Plaintiff Bank duly made compliance of S.176 of Contract Act, 1872 before exercising its right to sell pledged shares of borrower—Plaintiff was a scheduled Bank in terms of S.2(32) of Companies Ordinance, 1984 and it had obtained shares from borrower as security to finance facility availed by him, in normal course of its banking business—Requirement of seeking approval from Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan was not applicable to plaintiff-Bank in view of S.62(5) of Companies Ordinance, 1984—High Court did not find any infirmity in judgment and decree passed by Banking Court in favour of plaintiff Bank—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
2007 CLD 1071 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MODERN KNITTING AND WOOLLEN SPINNERS (PVT.) LTD and another VS MANZUR AHMED SHEIKH
—Ss. 9, 10, 18 & 21—Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.19—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.11 & O.XOXVII—Procedure of Banking Court—Scope—Grant of leave to defend suit—Principles—Execution of decre
2007 CLD 480 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs NENSER DRUGS (PVT.) LIMITED VS THE BANK OF PUNJAB
—Ss. 7, 9 & 21—Suit for recovery of loan—Leave to appear defend suit—Defendants filed application for leave to appear and defend suit within prescribed period, but said and dismissed by Banking Court, despite serious factual and legal objections w
2006 CLD 1409 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs LIKE SPORTS through Managing Partner VS Messrs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED through Attorneys
—Ss. 21, 10 & 9—Suit for recovery of bank loan—Application for leave to defend-Plaintiff-Bank filed suit for recovery of loan against defendants—Defendants filed application seeking leave to defend the suit mainly on ground that statement of accou
2006 CLD 1161 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN VS JUDGE, BANKING COURT NO.1, MULTAN
—Ss. 7 & 21—Financial Instihutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, (XLVI of 2001), Ss.7 & 22—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.73(1), Proviso (c)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition–Maintainability—Execution p
2006 CLD 139 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Syed ZULFIQAR ALI SHAH VS HABIB BANK LIMITED through Attorney
—Ss.21 & 22—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss.5 & 29—Appeal—Limitation—Condonation of delay–Appeal filed against judgment and decree passed by Banking Court, was barred by limitation—Appellant filed application under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908
2006 CLD 139 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Syed ZULFIQAR ALI SHAH VS HABIB BANK LIMITED through Attorney
–S.21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, R.19—Appeal, restoration of—Sufficient cause—Pre-occupation of counsel before other Court-Non-filing of affidavit of counsel—Effect—Appeal against judgment and decree passed by Banking Court, was
2006 CLD 69 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs M.O.A. TEXTILES (PVT.) LIMITED VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
— Ss. 10, 13 & 21—Leave to defend suit, grant of—Unconditional grant of leave to defend suggested a bona fide triable issue to have been disclosed by the defendant before the Banking Court and in such circumstances, it was pre-emptory and onerous fo
2006 CLD 832 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Messrs IRISMA INTERNATIONAL VS UNITED BANK LIMITED, KARACHI
—Ss. 9, 18 & 21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, R.65—Auction under order of the Banking Court—Once a bid has been accepted, and no objections are filed within given time, the auction is to be deemed to have been confirmed under O.XXI, R.6
2006 CLD 734 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AL-MADINA ELECTRIC STORE, DAHARKI, through Proprietor VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
–Ss. 9, 10 & 21—Suit for recovery of loan—Application for leave to defend suit—Dismissal of application—Leave to defend application pleaded that appellant did apply for sanction of loan and did execute a number of inchoate documents in order to a
2005 SCMR 1108 SUPREME-COURT
Ch. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF VS UNITED BANK LIMITED
—-S.21—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Appeal–ÂLimitation—During execution proceedings, appellant filed objection before Executing Court which was dismissed on 10.9.1999—Application for obtaining certified copy of the order was fi
2005 CLD 1847 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs MUDASSAR WEAVING FACTORY through Sole Proprietor VS BANK OF PUNJAB through General Manager
—-S. 21— Appeal—Condonation of delay—Judgment/decree were passed on 25-6-1998—Application for certified copies was made on 16-9-1998, which were supplied on 21-9-1998—Appeal was filed on 26-9-1998—Plea of appellant was that he met with an ac
2005 CLD 1847 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs MUDASSAR WEAVING FACTORY through Sole Proprietor VS BANK OF PUNJAB through General Manager
—S. 21—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss.5 & 29(2)—Appeal—Condonation of delay—Provision of S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 not applicable to an appeal under Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997.
2005 CLD 1823 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Syed RASHID HUSSAIN VS BANK OF PUNJAB through Managing Director
–Ss.10 & 21—Suit for recovery of loan—Application for leave to defend the suit—Said application was dismissed for non-prosecution and, simultaneously, the decree was passed in favour of the Bank—Defendant did not file any appeal but moved an appl
2005 CLD 1787 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs MENAHIL TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive VS MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.
–Ss. 10 & 21—Suit for recovery of loan—Leave to defend suit—Total sanctioned loan was not disbursed and the Bank unilaterally reduced the finance of Rs.19.900 million to 5.99 million —Un disbursed amount was recalled—Bank invited quotations for
2005 CLD 1663 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs SUN RISE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. through Chief Executive VS TRUST LEASING CORPORATION LTD.
— Ss. 10, 2(d), 9 & 21—Appeal—Application for leave to defend the suit—Dismissal of such application on valid reasons while discarding the agreement which was executed between the judgment-debtors but the Corporation (plaintiff being not party to
2005 CLD 1500 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs AWAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS (AS THEN WERE) through Mahmood-ul-Alvi VS UNITED BANK LIMITED through Manager
—S. 21—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss.5, 29 & Art.156—Appeal—Limitation—Condonation of delay—“Ordinary” and “special law”—Distinction—Provisions of Limitation Act, 1908—Applicability—Appeal was barred by limitation and appellants soug
2005 CLD 1464 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED through Manager and Attorney VS Messrs MALIK CARPET INDUSTRIES
—S.21—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss.5, 29(2) & Art.156—Appeal before High Court against judgment/decree of Banking Court—Condonation of delay—Application under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908—Maintainability—Under ordinary law, period of 90 da
2005 CLD 1459 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs WAQAR CORPORATION VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKSITAN through Manager
—Ss.15 & 21—Decree for recovery of loan amount with mark-
up—Sole plea raised by defendant. before High Court was that Bank was not entitled to recover amount for cushion period of 210 days—Validity—Amount for cushion period, though claimed by B
2005 CLD 1220 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs SHAFI BONZER INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
#NAME?
2005 CLD 1220 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs SHAFI BONZER INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
#NAME?
2005 CLD 1162 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ VS UNITED BANK LIMITED
—Ss. 18 & 21—Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Ss. 19 & 22—Execution of decree—Appeal—Main grouse/complaint in the appeals were that though the appellants had entered into an agreement of sale with the judgm
2005 CLD 1116 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs AL-KASHMIR TRADERS VS UNITED BANK LIMITED through Muhammad Jarar
—Ss.10 & 21—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.114—Leave to defend suit, application for—Plea not raised in such application before Banking Court—Effect—Parties would be bound by their pleadings—Fresh plea raised by appellant before High Cou
2005 CLD 953 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LIMITED (ZTBL) through Branch Manager—Plaintiff
VS Messrs ZASHA LIMITED
—Ss. 9 & 21—State Bank of Pakistan SBP Circular No.29 of 2002—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.IX, R.8 & S.151–ÂLimitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 181—Suit for recovery of outstanding loan—Pending petition for leave to defend the suit by the
2005 CLD 941 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mst. RIFFAT JEHAN VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
—Ss. 7, 10 & 21—Qanun-E-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 84 & 59—Application for grant of leave and defend the case–ÂAllegation of fraud about signatures and thumb impressions on the documents by the defendants—Visual comparison of disputed signatur
2005 CLD 938 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager VS Messrs FRESH JUICES LTD. through Director/Chief Executive
—S.21—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 5, 29(2) & Art. 156–ÂAppeal—Time barred appeal—Condonation of delay–ÂApplication under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908–ÂMaintainability—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances
2005 CLD 629 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHALID SHAHBAZ CHAUDHRY VS PRIME COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. through Vice-President
—Ss. 7, 9 & 21—Suit for recovery of loan filed before Banking Tribunal under Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984—Contention of the defendants was that suits were filed before incompetent Tribunal, therefore same could not be transferred by operation o
2005 CLD 624 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Dr. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF VS THE BANK OF PUNJAB through Manager
–Ss. 9, 10, 18 & 21—Suit for recovery of loan—Defendants had not filed applications for leave to appear to defend the suit—Banking Court dismissed the suit ex parte and also decreed against the defendants—Bank and defendants, during pendency of a
2005 CLD 615 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
JAVED AHMAD VS UNITED BANK LIMITED
–Ss. 10, 12 & 21—Dismissal of application for leave to defend suit for non-prosecution as neither the defendants nor their counsel entered appearance to prosecute the application—Neither in the grounds of appeal nor at the time of hearing of appeal t
2005 CLD 610 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD JAMEEL VS CITIBANK N.A.
—Ss. 14, 15, 18 & 21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.151—Suit for recovery of bank loan—Borrower had mortgaged his property as security and the title deeds were in the possession of the Bank—Banking Court granted decree to the Bank which att
2005 CLD 581 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs MOHIB EXPORTS LTD., VS TRUST LEASING CORPORATION LTD. through Chief Executive
#NAME?
2005 CLD 581 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs MOHIB EXPORTS LTD., VS TRUST LEASING CORPORATION LTD. through Chief Executive
–Ss.10 & 21—Application for leave to defend suit–ÂDefendant had asserted that the Financial Institution had recovered the total decretal amount in one case and decree stood partially satisfied in other case and had charged mark-up over the mark-up—
2005 CLD 503 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mrs. TANIS AKHTAR VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN, through Manager
—Ss. 9 & 21—Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.316(1)—Recovery of bank loan—Failure to seek permission from Company Judge—Bank filed suit against defendant company and its Directors/guarantors for recovery of bank loan—Defendant company wa
2005 CLD 292 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
HABIB BANK LIMITED VS Messrs THE ENGLISH ENGINEERING COMPANY
–Ss.9 & 21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11—Plaint rejection of—No cause of action—Absence of written finance agreement between the parties—Without deciding the application for leave to defend the suit, Banking Court rejected the p
2005 CLD 287 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs AL-MADAN COAL COMPANY (PVT.) LIMITED through Managing Director VS REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION
—Ss. 4 & 21—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 84–Communication during ordinary course of business—Visual comparison—Banking Court rejected the leave application and decreed the suit of the plaintiff of sanctioned advice, execution of the financ
2005 CLD 126 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs SUN RISE TEXTILE LTD and 7 others VS PRIME COMMERCIAL BANK LTD
—-Ss.7, 9 & 21—Bdnking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), Ss.5, 6 & 9—Contention of the appellant was that suits were filed by the Bank before an incompetent Tribunal (Banking Tribunal), therefore the same could not be transferred by operation of
2005 CLD 50 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
RUBINA JAMSHED VS UNITED BANK LIMITED
—-Ss. 10, 9, 7 & 21—Suit for recovery of loan—Denial of guarantor to have signed the letters of guarantee–Application for leave to defend the suit—Guarantor had simply denied his signatures on the letters of guarantee without placing on record an
2005 CLD 42 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
TAJAMAL HUSSAIN VS MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED through Attorney and 10 others
—–Ss.18, 7 & 21—-Execution of decree—Sale of property through public auction—Issuance of sale certificate and order of “Qufal Shikni” of the house—Application objecting to the sale by auction inviting the attention of the Banking Court to a pat
2005 CLD 187 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SAADAT HAYAT KHAN VS MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED
—-S.21—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5—Appeal–Limitation—Condonation of delay—Suit file was kept by the Presiding Officer of the Banking Court in his Chambers for more than eight months and thereafter, without any notice of any date of hearing
2004 CLD 1507 SUPREME-COURT
Ch. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF VS UNITED BANK LIMITED
–S.21—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)–ÂAppeal—Limitation—During execution proceedings, appellant filed objection before Executing Court which was dismissed on 10-9-1999—Application for obtaining certified copy of the order was filed
2004 CLD 1637 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs POLYMER INTERNATIONAL through Sole Proprietor VS Messrs BOLAN BANK LTD. Through General Manager
#NAME?
2004 CLD 1577 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD AJMAL KHAN VS UNITED BANK LIMITED
#NAME?
2004 CLD 1577 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD AJMAL KHAN VS UNITED BANK LIMITED
#NAME?
2004 CLD 1371 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs MADINA RICE MILLS through Managing Partner VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
—-S.21—General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24-A—Misreading and non-reading of evidence—Non-speaking order, effect of —Suit for recovery filed -by the bank against the appellants was decreed—Appeal was filed by the appellant against the impugned
2004 CLD 1348 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD BOOTA VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN
—-S.21(5)—Interim order, appeal from—Maintainability—Suit for specific performance of contract alongwith recovery of amount was filed by the appellant against the bank—Banking Court dismissed the application of the appellants in which it was pra
2004 CLD 1157 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS Messrs MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ TANNERIES (PVT.) LIMITED
—-Ss.10 & 21—Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, (XLVI of 2001), Ss. 10 & 22—Suit decreed treating the application to defend as barred by time—Plea of the appellantÂ-Bank was that notice was received on 15-5-1997 and reply to
2004 CLD 1114 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs UNITED BANK LIMITED VS BANKING COURT NO.IV, LAHORE
—-Ss.18(6) & 21—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199–Constiiutional petition—Execution of decree—Sale of property—Dismissal of objection petition–Judgment-debtor did not file appeal against such order, but instead filed Constitutional peti
2004 CLD 1077 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs P&B CARPETS (PVT.) LIMITED VS THE BANK ALFLAH LIMITED
—-Ss.9, 10 & 21—Suit for recovery of loans—Appeal—Financial facilities, as mentioned in suits by Bank, were advanced to defendants, who executed relevant documents and creation of mortgage had not been denied by defendants who failed to liquidate
2004 CLD 845 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK through Fareed Khan Verdag (Attorney of the Bank) VS M. Y. MALIK & COMPANY
#NAME?
2004 CLD 838 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
TARIQ JAVED VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss.15 & 21—Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.4—Decree in suit for recovery of loan amount–Validity—Defendants had admitted availing of loan facility and had not denied execution of all documents annexed with plaint or placed on rec
2004 CLD 808 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS Mrs. NAJMA PERVEEN
—-Ss. 9, 15 & 21—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54—Suit for declaration, injunction and rendition of accounts—Bank issued notice to borrower showing his liability to tune of Rs.36,000—Borrower filed suit seeking declaration that no suc
2004 CLD 795 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SHEHZAD NADEEM VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN, GUJRAT BRANCH
—-Ss.15, 18 & 21—Execution of decree—Future mark-up on decretal amount claimed by Bank, though not awarded under the decree—Banking Court dismissed objection of judgment debtor—Plea of Bank was that judgment debtor had voluntarily deposited mark
2004 CLD 757 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KAMRAN BASHIR VS CITIBANK N.A.
—-Ss.10 & 21—panun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.84–Suit for recovery of amount of credit card—Leave to defend suit—Plea of defendant was that credit card issued by Bank was lost and its information was duly given to Bank, which did not stop its u
2004 CLD 755 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
—-Ss.9, 15 & 21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIV, R.1—Decree in suit for recovery of loan amount by sale of mortgaged property—Necessary parties—Contention of appellants (non-parties to suit) was that they had purchased lease-hold right
2004 CLD 748 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
JAVAID TANVEER MUGHAL VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Branch Manager and 3 others
—-S. 21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)–Appeal —Dismissal of application under S.12(2), C.P.C. by the Banking Court—Appeal against such order was not competent.
2004 CLD 745 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mst. GHULAM KUBRA VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss. 15 & 21—Decree for recovery of loan amount—Plea of appellants (legal heirs of deceased mortgagee/ defendant) was that mortgage deed and personal guarantee were forged documents having been prepared after death of mortgagee —Validity—Record
2004 CLD 743 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MAHMOOD HUSSAIN BAJWA VS Messrs GULF COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED
—-Ss.9(4), 12 & 21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.V, R.25—Ex parte decree—Refusal of Banking Court to set aside decree—Contention of appellant was that he was living abroad, thus, no decree could be passed against him except affecting his s
2004 CLD 587 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs C.M. TEXTILES (PVT.) LIMITED VS INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss. 9 & 21—Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), Ss. 2(8) & 4—Statement of account—Pre-requisites of–Application for leave to defend—Dismissal of—Suit for recovery of loan amount decreed in favour of the Banking Company—Plea of the
2004 CLD 535 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs MACH KNITTERS (PVT.) LIMITED VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED
—-Ss. 2(e), 7 & 21—Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI -of 2001), Ss. 2(c), 7 & 22—Suit for recovery decreed in favour of the Bank—Plea of the certain appellants, who were alleged to have stood as guarantors for the finan
2004 CLD 493 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD YUSUF VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD
—-Ss.l8(6) & 21—Execution of decree—Sale of mortgaged property—Appellant filed- objection petition claiming to be shareholder in mortgaged property—Banking Court while issuing notice to respondent in objection petition imposed condition of depos
2004 CLD 486 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ASAD TAJ VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss.10, 15 & 21—Suit for recovery of loan amount—Leave to defend suit—Plea of defendant (son of borrower, who died on 13-1-1996) was that oral gift of mortgaged property in his favour was made by deceased in year 1975 and was acknowledged on 19-3
2004 CLD 481 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
IMTIAZ AHMAD VS PLATINUM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED
—-Ss.10, 15 & 21—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.127 & 144—Decree for recovery of loan amount after dismissal of application for leave to defend suit—Appellant after admitting his signatures on personal guarantee and memorandum of title deed execute
2004 CLD 460 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
TRAVEL KINGS (PVT.) LIMITED VS UNION BANK LIMITED
—-Ss.9, 10, 15 & 21–.-Suit for recovery of loan amounting to Rs.55,24,355.94—Plea of defendants was that after the alleged payment of Rs.10 millions only Rs.3 millions were left payable and three cheques amounting to Rs.5 lacs each were delivered to
2004 CLD 397 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
- S. NAGI, ADVOCATE VS UNITED BANK LIMITED, LAHORE
#NAME?
2004 CLD 1711 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SINDH TANNERIES LTD. VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss.9 & 21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.34-B, O.XXI, R.23(2) & O.XXIII, R.3—Suit for recovery of loan–ÂCompromise decree, execution of—Entitlement to mark-up–ÂSuit having been compromised, compromise decree was passed whereby plaintiff
2003 SCMR 1158 SUPREME-COURT
AFZAL MAQSOOD BUTT VS BANKING COURT, LAHORE
—-S.21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, Rr.87, 89 & 92–ÂConstitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)—Execution of decree —Re Âauction of property—Failure to set aside earlier auction —Validity–ÂLeave to appeal was granted by Suprem
2003 CLD 1770 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Messrs AIMA INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED
—-Ss.7, 9, 10 & 21—Suit for recovery of amount–Application for leave to defend suit—Dismissal—Defendant filed appeal against judgment of Banking Court whereby its application for grant of permission to appear and defend the suit was dismissed—A
2003 CLD 1581 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Mst. ALLAH RAKHI VS GENERAL MANAGER, HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE KARACHI
—-S. 21—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Suit for recovery of amount or outstanding loan and dues against the petitioner–Constitutional petition by the petitioner seeking that House Building Finance corporation be restrained from making any
2003 CLD 1570 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
RAFIQ AHMED SANAURI VS UNION BANK LIMITED
—-Ss.18 & 21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.114, O.XXI, R.90 & O.XLVII, R.1—Sale in execution of decree—Objection petition—Banking Court directed judgment-debtor to deposit by specified date 20% of sale price in terms of O.XXI, R.90, C.P.C.
2003 CLD 1507 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
HASSAN MASOOD VS EQUITY PARTICIPATION FUND
—-Ss. 18(6) & 21—Execution of decree—Attachment of property—Dismissal of appellant’s objection petition claiming to be owner of such property since year ,1981 through registered sale-deed—Validity—Loan was secured by pledge of shares of judgme
2003 CLD 1464 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
INTERNATIONAL TRADERS VS UNION BANK LIMITED
#NAME?
2003 CLD 1426 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SHAMIN SHOES (PVT.) LIMITED VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
—-Ss.18 & 21—Execution of compromise decree—Bank had alleged commission of default by judgment-debtor as per terms of compromise—Judgment-debtor denied such allegation and objected to maintainability of execution application—Dismissal of objecti
2003 CLD 771 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
FAKHAR HAYAT VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
#NAME?
2003 CLD 702 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mian AFTAB A. SHEIKH VS TRUST LEASING CORPORATION LIMITED
—-Ss.10 & 21—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.135—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)—Rescheduling agreement—Discharge of surety—Guarantors in their petition for leave to defend had not raised the question of discharge of their obligations a
2003 CLD 676 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PAKISTAN KUWAIT INVESTMENT COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. VS BANK AL-FALAH LIMITED
—-Ss.12, 15, 21 & 27—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)—Decree for recovery of Bank loan—Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C., for setting aside such decree–Maintainability—Applicant claiming to be creditor of judgment-debtor raised plea t
2003 CLD 291 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
UNITED BANK LIMITED VS TANVIR KHALID
—-Ss. 9 & 21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. III, Rr. 1 & 2—Suit for recovery of loan filed by Bank through its Branch Manager—Banking Court while deciding leave application dismissed suit for not being filed through competent person—Conten
2003 CLD 288 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ABDUL MAJID VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss.18 & 21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXI, Rs.23-A, 58, 59 & 60—Execution of decree– -Objection petition by appellant seeking de-attachment and release of disputed property—Banking Court dismissed objection petition—Validity—Appel
2003 CLD 280 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD SALEEM VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss. 18 & 21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXI, Rr. 58, 59 & 60—Execution of money decree—Objection of appellant seeking de-attachment and release of disputed property was that he was neither a borrower nor judgmentdebtor—Banking Court d
2003 CLD 264 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD ISHAQ VS ALTOWFEEK INVESTMENT BANK LIMITED
—Ss. 18 & 21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXI, R.90—Execution of decree—Auction proceedings—Four bidders participated in auction of property and offered their bids, out of which three highest bidders withdrew their bids, whereas the lowe
2003 CLD 259 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL LEASING CORPORATION LIMITED VS NOORANI INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED
—Ss.18 & 21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.2(2) & 96(3)—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 114—Execution of consent decree—Execution petition for recovery of unpaid amount under decree—Claim of Judgment-debtor for refund of certain amou
2003 CLD 232 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ICEPAC LIMITED VS ASIAN LEASING CORPORATION LIMITED
—-Ss. 9 & 21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.96–Appeal—Plea that suit not filed by duly authorized person–Application for leave to defend the suit was dismissed by Banking Court and suit filed by Bank was decreed against the borrower—Plea ra
2003 CLD 204 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
UMAR HAYAT VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss. 15 & 21—Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), S.6(2)—Suit for recovery of loan amount—Legal and factual pleas raised by defendant to reply to show-cause notice issued to him under S.6(2) of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 were rejec
2003 CLD 114 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHAN MUHAMMAD TEXTILES (PVT.) LIMITED VS NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LEASING CORPORATION LIMITED
—Ss. 15 & 21—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 74—Decree for recovery of amount due in respect of lease finance—Claim for penal interest by Leasing Company for delayed payment of lease rentals—Contention of borrowers was that they were not liable to
2003 CLD 105 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AL-HADAYAT TEXTILE VS SONERI BANK LIMITED
—-Ss. 10, 15 & 21—General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24-A (as added by General Clauses (Amendment) Act (XI of 1997))—Decree for recovery of loan amount passed by Banking Court without adhering to questions raised in application for leave to defend t
2003 CLD 57 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NEW RAHAT ENGINEERING WORKS VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
—Ss. 18 & 21—Civil Procedure -Code (V of 1908), S.12(2) 6 O.XXI. Rr. 90, 92 & 94—Execution of decree—Sale of mortgaged property—Application for setting aside auction proceedings being based on fraud and having been conducted with material irregu
2003 CLD 53 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ABDULLAH TEHSEEN TRADING COMPANY VS PLATINUM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED
—-Ss. 15, 21 & 27—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.10—Decree in favour of Bank in suit for recovery of loan amount—Plaints in judgment-debtors’suits for redemption of mortgaged property and recovery of damages filed against Bank were re
2003 CLD 1729 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
TECHNO POWERGEN (PVT.) LTD VS AL-ZAMIN LEASING MODARABA MANAGEMENT (PVT.) LTD.
—-Ss. 7, 18 &, 21—Lease of assets (machinery) on rentals–Default in payment of monthly rental by the lessee—Suit for recovery was decreed by the Banking Court in the terms that, in case of default the entire decretal amount shall become due and pay
2003 CLD 1336 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
JULANDAR (PVT.) LTD VS OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE
—-Ss. 18 & 21—Execution of decree—Auction—Sealed tenders were invited by the Official Assignee for the sale of Basmati Rice on “as is where is” basis—Lowest bid was accepted by the Court and intimation calling upon the bidder
2003 CLD 661 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
DOHA BANK LIMITED VS PANGRIO SUGAR MILLS LIMITED
—-S.21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, R.1 –Appeal not accompanied with copy of decree —Effect–Requirement of filing decree with appeal found place in O.XLI, R. 1, C.P.C. and not in S.21 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advanc
2003 CLD 119 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
JAWAHAR AFZAL VS UNITED BANK LIMITED
—Ss. 9, 10 & 21—Suit for recovery of amount—Application for leave to defend suit—Dismissal of application —Effect–Trial Court would be left with no option but to decree the suit.
2002 CLD 550 SUPREME-COURT
MESSRS HUFFAZ SEAMLEN PIPE INDUSTRIES LTD. VS MESSRS SECURITY LEASING CORPORATION LTD.
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-S. 21—Appeal—Bar to file appeal against any interlocutory order of Banking Court—Object—Intention of the Legislature is that such disputes are resolved as early as possible.
2002 CLD 1 SUPREME-COURT
PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, PESHAWAR CANTT VS GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss.18(6) & 21—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Execution of decree for recovery of Bank loan–Ratable distribution of assets of judgment-debtor—Property of judgment-debtor was sold in execution of decree–Executing Court accepted app
2002 SCMR 1419 SUPREME-COURT
Messrs HUFFAZ SEAMLEN PIPE INDUSTRIES LTD VS Messrs SECURITY LEASING CORPORATION LTD
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-S. 21—Appeal—Bar to file appeal against any interlocutory order of Banking Court—Object—Intention of the Legislature is that such disputes are resolved as early as possible.
2002 CLD 1634 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Sheikh NAZIR AHMED VS HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION
—-Ss. 9(4), 10 & 21—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII R. 11 —Suit for rendition of accounts and declaration—Rejection of plaint without deciding leave application—Plaintiff-customer claimed to have a
2002 CLD 723 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Mrs. ROSHAN BANG VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED
?
2002 CLD 689 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD VS Messrs TAWAKKAL GARMENT INDUSTRIES LTD
—-Ss. 9(4), 12 & 21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12 (2)–Suit for recovery of loan—Ex parte decree, setting aside of–Provision of S.12(2), C.P.C.– Applicability—Provisions of S.12(2), C.P.C. could be pressed into service in Banking cases,
2002 CLD 137 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AFSHAN AHMED VS MESSRS HABIB BANK LIMITED
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-S.21(1)—Appeal—Scope—Order or decision not falling within the definition of the decree/order/sentence as specified in S.21(1) of the Act cannot be challenged by way of an appeal under S.21 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997.
2002 CLD 46 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABDUL BASIT ZAHID VS MODARABA AL TIJARAH
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-S.9—Modarba (Floatation and Control) Ordinance (XXXI of 1980), preamble—Notification No.F.48(7)/80-A(11), dated 30-12-1986—Suit for recovery of Bank loan against Modarba management company—Banking Court–Jurisdiction—Doctrine of de facto—Applicability—Objection was raised to the jurisdiction of Banking Court on the ground that under Notification No. 48(7)/80-A(11), dated 30-12-1986, the jurisdiction against Modarba company was vested only in the Tribunal constituted under the Notification—Validity—Although by virtue of the Notification the Tribunal was empowered to try all cases under the provisions of Modarba (Floatation and Control) Ordinance, 1980, yet the Notification was neither brought to the notice of the Banking Court nor any such application was filed by any of the parties to the suit—Suit, in the present case, proceeded all along without any objection or application for its transfer to the newly-created Tribunal—Where the Banking Court bona fide passed judgment and decree on merits, the same was protected under the doctrine of de facto—Judgment and decree based on bona fides and on merits should be assumed to have been passed de jure and would be deemed to possess all attributes of a lawful operative and binding order.
2001 SCMR 410 SUPREME-COURT
TRI-STAR POLYSTER LIMITED VS CITI BANK
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-Ss. 2(f), 18(6) & 21(5)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)–Appeal against interlocutory order—Maintainability—High Court acting as Banking Court under the provision of S.2(f) of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, was similar to a Special Court—Any such order passed by High Court under the Act was in the capacity of a Banking Court and not the High Court in its ordinary jurisdiction—Where suit was being tried under the provisions of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, no appeal was competent against interlocutory order—Subject-matter of the petition for leave to appeal being interlocutory order not falling in the categories of orders under S. 18(6) of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 petition for leave to appeal was not maintainable.
2001 CLC 669 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
JALAL DIN VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, HEAD OFFICE; I.I. CHUNDRIGAR ROAD, KARACHI
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 S. 21(5)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.104, O.XXI, Rr.62, 69 & 103—Execution of decree—Objection to—First appeal—Suit for recovery of amount filed by Bank against borrower/judgment-debtor having been decreed, Bank filed execution petition and Court ordered auction of property owned by judgment-debtor—Objection petition filed by appellant having been dismissed, appeal was filed by him against dismissal order–Documents on record had proved that property under auction was altogether different from that owned by the appellant/objector—Banking Court in dismissing objection petition having not committed any illegality or infirmity, appeal against dismissal order had no merit and was dismissed.
2001 CLC 737 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
BANKERS EQUITY LTD. VS KHANPUR SUGAR MILLS
21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.152—Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders—Application for—Maintainability—Judgment and decree not according to compromise—Remedy—Scope of amendments and correction under S.152, C.P.C. was only to the extent of clerical and arithmetical mistakes—Compromise application, the judgment accepting and allowing the compromise and decree prepared by Court in pursuance thereof had shown difference between the term of compromise and judgment and decree prepared—Such judgment and decree was not due to any accidental slip or omission but Court while passing the judgment and preparing the decree had incorporated so many other things, not finding place in the compromise–
2001 CLC 87 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
KOHINOOR FIBRES LIMITED VS FIRST U.D.L. MODARABA
Ss. 15 & 21—Payment of decretal amount in instalments as provided in 5.15 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997—Scope—Banking Court, prior to exercise of powers with regard to the repayment of decretal amount by way of instalments had to obtain the detailed and reasoned opinion of the concerned banking companies in writing for such purpose—Where no ground for instalment was placed before the High Court, no such opinion or consent of the bank was called for by the High Court—Appeal was dismissed in limine.
2000 CLC 847 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
CITI BANK N.A., A BANKING COMPANY VS RIAZ AHMED
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-S. 21—Appeal against consent decree —Maintinability—Such appeal is not
maintainable.
2000 PLD 326 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
BENGAL CORPORATION VS MIDDLE EAST BANK LTD
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-O. XLI, R. 19—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), S.21—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5 & Art.68–Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution —Readmission–Delay, condonation of—Panel of counsel was engaged to pursue the appeal-None of the counsel appeared on the date fixed for hearing and the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution—Application for re-admission of appeal was to be filed within 30 days, according to Art. 68 of Limitation Act, 1908, but the same was filed after more than 30 days, without any plausible .explanation for the delay—Effect—Absence of the counsel of the appellants as well as the appellants was wilful and deliberate—Even application for condonation of delay under S.5, Limitation Act, 1908 was filed after the application under O.XLI, R,19, C.P.C.—Party was to pursue the matter carefully and diligently—Delay was not condoned and consequently the appeal was not re-admitted.
1999 CLC 350 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
TAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN JAMALI VS REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION HEAD OFFICE GHOUSIA PLAZA, 20-BLUE AREA, ISLAMABAD
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-S. 21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)—Appeal—Competency–Banking Court passed ex parte decree against appellant on 30-4-1995–Appellant preferred appeal which was dismissed by High Court on 22-11-1995 non-prosecution—Bank filed execution application ;before Banking Court–Appellant in return submitted application under S.12(2), C.P.C. before Banking Court—Banking Court dismissed application of appellant—Appeal was also filed against dismissal of application—No effort was made, by appellant for restoration of previous appeal—Held: Fresh appeal was not competent–Appellant could not be permitted to take steps after a lapse of about 3 years–Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
1999 PLD 468 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SALIM ADAMJEE VS AL-FAYSAL INVESTMENT BANK LTD.
176—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), S. 21—Recovery of loan —Pawnee’s right where pawnor makes default —Pawnor had pledged shares with pawnee —Pawnee on default by pawnor had sent notice to the pawnor for the sale of pledged share as back as 1998—Pawnor thereafter, could sell the pledged shares on any date to reimburse itself by the sale of the pledged shares—Right of pawnee to sell the pledged shares was absolute and could not be bracketed with the possible rise in ,.rice of shares—Principles.
1999 PLD 391 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
VICTORY CORPN. VS EMIRATES BANK
Ss. 21 & 22—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts.181, 183 & 3—Suit for recovery of loan under Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979—Preliminary decree was passed on 12-2-1989 and final decree on 29-3-1992—Execution application—Limitation—Bank filed execution. application before High Court on 16-10-1997 which was transferred to the Banging Court and was present before the said Court on 7-2-1998—Debtor applied for dismissal of the execution application on the plea of limitation, which was dismissed by the Banking Court—Validity—Jurisdiction exercised by High Court under Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 and Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 being ordinary original civil jurisdiction, limitation period was to be regulated by Art.183, Limitation Act, 1908—Finding of Banking Court that Art. 183, Limitation Act, 1908 was attracted and that execution was filed before expiry of six years was correct and no exception could be taken to that.