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.
Suit No. 562 of 1983, decided on 18th February, 1985.
---S. 2--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Os. XXXIV & XXXVII, rr.2 & 3 and S. 151--Application for leave to appear and defend- Defendants getting many adjournments--On last date of hearing neither defendants nor their counsel appearing till last hour of Court time- Application seeking leave to defend filed by defendants dismissed for non-prosecution in circumstances.
---S. 2--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII--Applications filed by defendants seeking leave to defend--Dismissal for non-prosecution--Plaint found to be verified on solemn affirmation- Plaintiffs' claim supported by documents placed on record--Plaintiff, held, entitled to decree--Suit of plaintiff decreed in circumstances.
Habibur Rehman for Plaintiff.
Nemo for Defendants.
Date of hearing: 18th February, 1984.
This suit has been filed by the plaintiff-Bank for the recovery of Rs.31,52,187.46, under the Ordinance XIV of 1979 read with Order XXXIV of Civil Procedure Code. The defendants were served and at one stage Mr. S. Anwar Ali had appeared for defendants Nos. 1 and 2 but later on defendant No.2, who is also director of defendant No.l company, appeared on 12-8-1984 in person and requested for adjournment on the ground that he had taken away the file from Mr. S. Anwar Ali, Advocate and defendant No.2 wanted to engage another advocate. The case was adjourned. Then son of defendant No.2 had appeared on 2-9-1984 and 23-9-1984 and the case was adjourned at his request. On 28-10-1984 defendant No.2, had appeared in person, when the case was adjourned, as the parties were negotiating for compromise. Then the matter came up on 4-11-1984 and it was again adjourned in the presence of defendant No.2. Then the matter came up on 9-12-1984 when the interim application moved on behalf of the plaintiff was granted. Learned counsel for the plaintiff was present but none had appeared on behalf of the defendants. Today no one has appeared on behalf of the defendants. This matter was taken up in the morning and, then after the tea interval but no one appeared on behalf of the defendants. It is now 1.30 p.m. Defendants called absent. Mr. S. Anwar Ali, Advocate, is also absent. C.M.A. No. 3642 of 1983, an application under Order' XXXVII, rule 1 read with section 151, C.P.C. filed on behalf of defendants Nos.1 and 2, is dismissed for non-prosecution.
2. The application seeking leave to defend filed by the defendants Nos.l and 2 has been dismissed. The plaint in this case is verified on solemn affirmation. The plaintiff's claim is supported by the documents filed by the plaintiff Bank. The plaintiff-Bank is entitled to a decree. The amount claimed in the suit is Rs.31,52,187.46 with future interest at the rate of 16 per cent per annum from the date of the decree. Mr. Habibur-Rehman states that after the filing of the suit two amounts of Rs.2,11,649.73 and Rs.52,885.60 totalling Rs.2,65,535.33, were received by the plaintiff-Bank from the defendants. The claim of the plaintiff accordingly stands reduced from Rs.31,52,187.46 to Rs.28,86,652.13.
3. I pass a preliminary decree in Form 5-A of Appendix D to the Schedule of the Civil Procedure Code in the sum of Rs.28,86,652.13 for the sale of the mortgaged property. The plaintiff shall be entitled to interest on the decretal amount at the rate of 16 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till realization. The plaintiff shall- also be entitled to costs.
H. A. K.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer