Plaintiff's scope banking court for the recovery of Section 9 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), OVII, Rr 11 & 10, dismissed the plaintiff on grounds of non-grant of jurisdiction which was returned to the court and then returned The same was filed before the insurance tribunal, which was dismissed because it relied on the issue of whether the banking court had to resolve the issue or if the financial institution banking in default of fulfillment of any obligation. Can file a case in court In respect of any finance which was made in Section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Finance Recovery) Ordinance, 2001, the Banking Court was empowered to decide on the matter brought by the Customer Banking Court but instead according to law. Have to comply with the law. Approving the procedure provided under section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance, 2001, was approved by the Banking Court or in slip style and on the seventh week beyond the jurisdiction given in the same impound order. , R11, was moved in a comfortable manner on a petition moved under CPC that was not guaranteed by law rather than by a decision to request leave to defend banking. The court was obliged to decide the defendant's application for leave to first defend the defense's locus standi, and if he failed to establish the same to defend the case, then he was lodged under O VII. There was also no right to enter the application. , 11, CPC dismisses plaintiffs before approving leave for defense
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
