Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition No.36‑P of 1984, decided on 10th March, 1984.
(From the order dated 13‑12‑1984 of the Peshawar High Court passed in R.F.A. No.l of 1984).
‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979), S.12(5)‑‑Appeal‑‑Deposit of decretral amount in cash‑‑Normal condition for admission of appeal under Ordinance‑‑Discretion of High Court to require some other security in decretral amount‑‑Held, exercise of such discretion would not normally be interfered with by supreme Court‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Haji Maqsood Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 10th March, 1984.
‑‑ This petition is directed against an interim order dated 13‑‑2‑1984 passed by the Peshawar High Court in the petitioner's Regular First Appeal from a decree passed against him in a suit instituted by the respondent‑Bank under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The order requires the petitioner to furnish security in the shape of bank guarantee equal in value to the decretal amount within three weeks. The decretal amount is Rs.1,69,415
2. The grievance is that a security in the decretal amount would have sufficed and as such there was no justification to have called upon the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee. Subsection (5) of section, 12 of the Ordinance lays down that "No appeal shall be admitted fort hearing unless the appellant deposits in cash with the High Court an amount equivalent to the judgment‑debtor, at the discretion of the, High Court furnished security equal in value to such amount". The normal condition for admission of an appeal, therefore, is deposit in cash the decretal amount though the Court has been given the discretion to require some other security in that amount. This Court would not normally interfere with the exercise of such discretion. Learned counsel urges, in this connection, that the decree was bad in law but that point has yet to be examined by the High Court, where the petitioner's appeal is pending. The case, therefore, does not merit interference. The petition is dismissed.
S . Q. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer