Find a Lawyer

NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH ATTORNEY/OFFICER/ORIGINAL OPERATION CHIEF versus JALIB SAEED

Art 90, 88, 89, 120 and 135 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O VII, R 11 & O VI, R 2 Suit for recovery of misappropriated money by a bank employee without trial. 21 11 In 1998, forgery reached the bank's knowledge on 8 10 1997, after which an FIR was filed against the defendant on 4, 2003, in response to which the respondent dismissed the trial case. OVII, R 11, was submitted under CPC. Plaintiff (Bank) of the Limitation Act, 1908, dismissed the case on the indicator of limitation that the matter was not punctual because the Articles 120 and 135 of the Limitation Act 1908 were attracted to the facts. The circumstances of the suit were; that it was not attracted by the trial court under Article 90 of the Limitation Act, 1908. To the extent that the question of law and reality is mixed, the decision should not have been recorded without proof. The case for fraudulent knowledge was to be calculated from the history of fraudulent knowledge which was 8 d0 1997. Article 1335, the Limitation Act, 1908, applied for a mortgage case for possession of immovable property in a court other than the High Court. But the present case was filed by the defendant for the alleged illegal recovery of money. Or was not imposed by Art 88 and 89 in the Act. Article 90 of the present Act applied to the present case because the defendant was an agent of the Bank Article 90BF Limitation Act of 1908, which provided a three-year limit which was to be calculated from the date when the case of neglect or mismanagement was made by the plaintiff. It was learned that on 7 10 2000 by the bank immigration advocates from Jhal Magsi lawyer