Find a Lawyer

HUSSAN ARA versus BANK OF PUNJAB THROUGH MANAGER

Section 9 (5) Civil Procedure Code (V8 1908), O IX, R 13 Form 4 Annex B Suite Ex-parte Decree Service on Defendants' Compliance with Mandatory Requirements of Section 9 (5) for Receiving Bank Loans To separate. Financial Data (Reconstruction) Ordinance of Financial Institutions 2001 2001 Plaintiff Bank filed a case for debt collection on 17 6 2004 which was registered on the same day and with the issuance of the summons in Form 4 of Annexure B Requirements were also presented in newspapers with the CPC. Defendants through Banking Court, for 7 of 2004, the Defendants dismissed the case on 23 8 2004 for failing to adopt the due date for the hearing, the defendant set aside 26 for the former party decree. The petition was moved before the trial court on 2004, but it was on the grounds that the rejected plaintiff claimed that the financial institutions (recovery of financing) against them did not meet the requirements of section 9 (5) of the Ordinance 2001. The previous party's decree against was adopted, so it was the trial court's law without resorting to all the procedures prescribed under section 9 (5) of the Ordinance. The court justified the stay, there was no real attempt by the court to affect the services offered to the defendants in accordance with the relevant law. The partial decree, which was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the mandatory provisions of section 9 (5) of the Ordinance, was a defunct document which must be set aside without record of evidence. Appeal due to non-dismissal on the basis of sanctions filed by the defendants for separation of party decree Pakistan, top advocate family court from Kotmomin lawyer