AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, PRINCIPAL OFFICER versus MUHAMMAD SULEMAN KHAN
Section 9 and 22 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Section 11 and O. VII, R11 Code of Conduct for the Recovery of Suite Loans, 1908 The lease raised by the lender was that the bank's claim earlier in the year 1999 I was sentenced in a bank-based lawsuit based on the agreement, which was conditional, and both parties were obliged to meet their respective conditions. Through the banking court. However, the bank failed to fulfill its terms of filing fees until 129 1999, which resulted in the dismissal of its claim, which could not be resumed due to the bar in section 11, on behalf of the bank. The CPC dispute raised was that the Banking Court could not exclude the recovery case and that only the plaintiff could be dismissed that, through an impartial banking order, he could dismiss the plaintiff and dismiss the case. Cannot exclude because this order was approved. In 1999, there was a conditional and incomplete result that the bank rejected its claim. The dispute between the parties was finally settled through a consent decree, so the aforesaid case was again affected by the rule of court. ? Was unable to be retained and the bank was stopped to bring a new case against the borrower on this matter Banking Court rightly excluded the scope of the bank appeal by the High Court.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
