ZESHAN JAMIL versus JUDGE BANKING COURT, FAISALABAD
Section 16 (3) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Article 199 Financing the acquisition of property by the Bank Petitioner seizing the property by default finance was sued by default finance. The declaration and permanent injunction against the auction of the vehicle and the return of its occupation, which the applicant claimed to have purchased, the applicant's offer was that the banking suit was intact or thereby only against the parties, Which means, the lender's financial institution and its consumer petitioner were no customers, but the third party to whom the carriage bank under question had been sold free of disappearance claimed it had any connection with it. do not have. In financial matters, this was not possible because the party in the suit was still one. The stage of the dispute resolution was raised by the banking court-approved order, the applicant was asked to appear in court. Submitted under question in the vehicle to be handed to the person entitled to the custody of the petitioner, the petitioner's lawyer claimed that the bankruptcy order court ruled that the legal institutions of the Financial Institutions (Finance Recovery) Ordinance 16 Limitations were violated, with the return of financial data instead of being adequately compensated for frustrated lease finance in 2001 Was answered factor. In the petition filed before the Banking Court, the applicant's application was against the law, the High Court has stated that the decision was erroneous that the applicant's application was legal and it was stated that the order was illegal and illegal. No legal effect \ r \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
