SHEIKH ABDUL SATTAR LASI versus JUDGE BANKING COURT
Sections 15 (4) (6) (10), 2 (b), 7 (2), 22 and 16 (10) of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), OI, R10, and XII, RR58, 59, 60 of Pakistan 66 and the Constitution (1973), Article 199 Auction of mortgaged property, not challenging the mandatory provisions of section 16 (10) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance, 2001; Misconception of jurisdiction by the court The proceedings filed against the applicants under section 15 (6) of the Financial Institutions Finance (Rehabilitation) Ordinance 2001, by which the bank has made this claim That the occupant of the property vacates The order to hand over possession should be issued. The public auction is entitled under section 15 (6) of the Ordinance to sell mortgaged property without court intervention, and the bank gave notice to the mortgage leaders in this regard, however, the applicant was enforced as a party. Was not made but the occupant of the property was presented as one of the parties. After the Petty invaders learned the nature of the case, they filed a petition under the OI, R-10, CPC, to become a party to the proceedings, claiming that the word suit was issued under Section 2 (b) of the Ordinance 2001. I was included in the definition given, while the second action is also covered under section 15 (6). ) The ordinance was covered by the word case which could be filed in the banking court, irrespective of the amount involved, since the applicants did not challenge the jurisdiction of the banking court, so in the notice issued under section 15 He could not challenge the High Court's justification. ()) In addition to the Ordinance, 2001, details of mortgaged property
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
