Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RAFIQ versus UNITED BANK LIMITED

Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 Section 9 (1), First Proviso Civil Procedure Code (V 1908), O XLI, R 19 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) for plaintiff's suit, for the specified amount of judgment by banking Has been filed by the Tribunal, the defendants who were admitted for the regular hearing either paying the amount not submitted by the defendants before filing the appeal or afterwards the merits of the appeal. (1) The petition submitted in the appeals on non-compliance indicates that the court failed to comply with the provisions of Section 9, Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984. Indeed, the appellants were wrongly admitted and could not be dealt with well, the notice of application was given on the defendants and the hearing date was fixed on the due date after which the defendants appeared on that date. Had failed to occur. Appeals were dismissed on the ground that the defendants did not submit the unpaid amount, the appeals were not authorized, then the defendants moved on the petition recalling the ex parte order but the same was dismissed, Section 9 (1), The Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, for the first time disregarded the provisions of the High Court, which allowed the appeal order to appeal, was a law instability, which was rightly withdrawn. The plaintiffs' refusal to withdraw the former party order on the petition of the High Court was fully considered in the dispute of merit and the result was that the required amount was not deposited, before the Appeals The filing was not viable, not open to any exceptions. With the High Court decision famous supreme court advocate from Khair Pur Mir lawyer