Sections 9, 7 (2), 22 and 27 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), OIX, R 13 The petition for the recovery of the debt was dismissed by the suit banking court dismissing the former party order. The trial court held that the application under O IX, R 13, CPC is not enforceable pursuant to section 27 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance), Ordinance 2001, as the department withdrew its order. Was not banned. The merit was approved and that under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance, the procedure laid down in the CPC for determination of the former party decree was applied in 2001, because of the law by the Banking Court The provisional provision was ignored, which was not included in the Legislature, despite the service of the court notice, so the previous order was passed by the banking court on a merit judge, the banking court discussed the merits of the case. And the order reached the final decision / order scope. E-Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance, 2001, any decision, order, sentence or any final order suffered by a person approved by a banking court, within a period of 30 days, May prefer such judgment, order, sentence or final order. Therefore, the provisions of the CPC clause in the High Court were applicable only where the Financial Institution (Finance) Ordinance 2001 was silent and the provisions of Section 7 and Section 22 of the Financial Institutions Ordinance 2001 were silent. Was not done Determined on the fact that the previous order was approved before or after filing a leave for appeal and defended the case.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
