MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ versus BANKING COURT NO.1, KARACHI
Sections 9, 19 and 22 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Section 12 (2) suit for recovery of bank loan The judgment was decided by the banking court on the basis of an agreement between the executing bank party without the intervention of the court suit. The execution proceedings under section 19 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance 2001, the appellant against the judgment debtors opposed the execution of the order that the defendants of the judgment were not the owners of the property under execution; Under the Bank's Financial Institutions Financing (Restoration) Ordinance, 2001, the appellant filed petitions as a tactic to defeat the order, all of which were rejected by the Banking Court, stating that in the first instance, The same lawyer who preferred the applications on behalf of the appellant moved the same petition. The banking court also rejected the application by another person and such costs were rejected by the banking court on the ground that the appellant had preferred the civil suit without having already imposed the bank on it. And the previous injunction order was obtained by falsifying false statements and facts without disclosing that the appellant or any other person did not own the property in respect of which the civil suit was. The High Court judgment was pending before the High Court, which was also submitted by the bank (by filing an application under OI, R10, CPC) and the order against the bank and the decision lenders appealed the order. Were working in a civil suit on behalf of the developer. In relation to the property in question, both of the charges will be excluded from the title of the property by valid evidence, therefore, yes
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2012
