Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 4247, 4459, 4899, 4861, 4862 of 1985 and 140, 1889 and 1891 of 1986 in Suit No. 793 of 1985, decided on 21st September, 1986.
---O. XXXVII, R. 3--Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979), S. 4--Application for leave to defend suit--On statement of plaintiff-Bank, that if property of defendants mortgaged with plaintiff-Bank was attached, plaintiff would have no objection if leave to defend and appear in suit, was granted to defendants--Court accepting application of plaintiff-Bank, attached property and granted leave to defendants to defend suit.
Habibur Rehman for Plaintiff.
Akram Zubairi and A.A. Fazeel for Defendants.
The first application has been filed by the plaintiff under section 4 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance for attachment of property as mentioned in para. 12 of the plaint which have been mortgaged to the plaintiff as security for recovery of loans advanced to the debtors. The applications Nos. 4 and 5 have been filed by defendants Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 7 for leave to appear and defend the suit. The Application No. 4861 of 1985 filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been disposed of Civil Miscellaneous Applications No. 4862 of 1985 and 140 of 1986 have been filed under Order XXXVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. by defendants Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 9. The defendant No.8 has also filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1891 of 1986 under section 5 of the Limitation Act and also application Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1891 of 1986 has been filed. Defendant No.8 have filed application under Order XXXVI I, Rule 3, C. P. C,. Mr. Habibur Rehman the learned counsel for the plaintiff has pointed out that the defendants Nos. 8 and 9 are guarantors and have mortgaged the property mentioned in para. 12 of the plaint. The 'market value of the property at the time of filing suit has been shown as Rs.20,20,000. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff after filing the suit the plaintiff has recovered Rs.80,000 from sale proceeding with the consent of the debtors. The learned. counsel further states that at present the liability of the defendants as on 15-4-1986 comes to Rs. 24,51,758.61. Mr. Habibur Rehman, the learned counsel states that if the mortgaged property is attached he will have no objection if leave is granted to the defendants to defend and appear in the suit. By consent the mortgaged property as shown in para. 12 of the plaint is attached which will serve as security for payment of the decretal amount. The defendants are allowed to appear and defend the suit. In view of the order passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 4861 of 1985, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1889 of 1986 is disposed of with same terms. (3) Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 4899 of 1985; Mr. Zubairi the learned counsel for the defendants Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 7 states that if both the suits are consolidated he will be satisfied and will not press for stay of the present suit. Considering the disputes between the parties as reflected from the plaint in both the suits, it would be proper if both the matters are fixed on the same date of hearing. It would be for the trial Judge to decide whether they should be tried together or separately.
H. B. T./A-14/K Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer