Find a Lawyer

SILK BANK LIMITED versus QAZI EHTISHAMUL HAQ

Section 12 (2) decision, except the forum, was allowed by the High Court and the bank's claim with the cost of the funds through the sale of the defendant mortgaged property in the judgment and order passed by the Banking Court. Was promoted. Section 12 (2), filed by the defendants, under CPC, the banking court set aside the bank's verdict by the high court and the order passed by the high court was finalized. And for that reason, the appropriate forum for the Banking Court was to High Court such order, not the decision of the Banking Court and the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Appeal as the order passed by the High Court was set aside and if If the respondent will file an application under section 12 (2), the CPC also allowed the appeal by the High Court accordingly.

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2011

• KHALID UMAR v. Syed ATHAR IQBAL, CHAIRMAN PAKISTAN OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT PROMOTERS 2011 SCMR 1555
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA 2011 SCMR 1557
• Meter NOOR MUHAMMAD v. NAZIR AHMED 2011 SCMR 1559
• Dr. MUHAMMAD ANWAR KURD v. THE STATE through Regional Accountability Bureau, Quetta 2011 SCMR 1560
• SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT LAHORE v. FAIZ AHMAD DOGAR 2011 PLC(CS) 1575
• AMANULLAH SHAH v. SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH 2011 SCMR 1584
• MUHAMMAD ARIF v. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SIALKOT 2011 SCMR 1591
• PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. Mst. AISHA NAWAZ 2011 SCMR 1602

All Supreme Court judgments of 2011 →

online advocate from Layyah lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes