Section 12 (2) Financial Institutions (Financial Recovery) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Sections 2 (c), 7 and 15 Order for Impeachment suit for recovery of dissatisfaction of the required party mortgage property owner Was granted and during the proceedings, the applicant moved the application under Section 12 (2), CPC, to decide that he was the owner of the mortgage and never enforced in this case. Went and did not mortgage the said property. The application was obtained by the trial court, Validati Bank, at the time of filing the case, knowing that the applicant was the legitimate owner of the mortgaged property and the defendant was in favor of the bank. The process was implemented by him. By virtue of customer appreciation in Section 2 (c) of the Lawyer's (her husband) Ordinance, the applicant was a mortgage of security to the Customer's party and an integral part of the suit, and in this case as a defendant Implementation was a serious mistake The effect of such a non-enforcement was that there was no order against the applicant and his personal property could not be executed and sold. The order in which she was not on record shows that it cannot be inferred that the agent (the applicant) had asked the principal (applicant) about the mortgage for his property and financing facility. Ever told that it was for the benefit of the husband only, the court observed that the plaintiff should have been more careful about this fact before financing the bank, and at least the applicant would have to take up the matter. K
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
