Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD LATIF versus HABIB BANK LIMITED, THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER

Under the previous order of appeals Sections 9, 12 and 22, action was taken against the aside for obtaining the limit of appellant's bail for recovery of the bank loan, the appellant and the creditors were directed by the banking court to issue the notice. Bailiff was fired in four different ways for issuing summonses. Refusal to accept the summons sent by TIWARN under the acknowledgment of the service postal core was denied, but those departing through the private courier service were published not only in the press in two newspapers but also at the appellant's address. There was no evidence on file that was sent. The appellant or his family did not read such published notice, yet despite the receipt of these newspapers at his residence, the Banking Court passed the previous Part Declaration on 26 1, 2002 against the lenders and the appellant. What was that during the execution proceedings, he came to know about the decree of 8 2002 2002, and the request to keep this decree was dismissed by the banking court filed on 1 6 2002. Due to the limitation period provided under Section 12 (Finance Recovery) Ordinance 2001 of Financial Institutions was 21 days, every day was delayed to the Appellant. I needed to explain, which was not so. For this reason, no delay petition was filed by the appellant, along with an affidavit with the accuracy of the reasons for the delay granted by him. The appellant was not only personally presented. He was aware of the prosecution of the lawsuit filed against him. Deliberately avoided appearing before the banking court registration advocate from Rawala Kot lawyer