Banking Laws

BANKING COMPANIES ORDINANCE (LVII OF 1962)

A financial institution can also be declared by Govt. to be a Banking Co. PICIC & ICP equated with other
Banks for financial and administration control of State Bank.
BANKING COMPANIES (RECOVERY OF LOANS) ORDINANCE (XIX OF 1979)
SECTION-2
(8)
(i)
Leave to defend- plea of lack of jurisdiction- Pakistani company operating abroad amount was paid and
demand for return made out of Pakistan hypothecated machinery lying out of Pakistan plea rejected
as agreement entered into in Pakistan Part of cause of action Section-20 CPC.
1990 CLC 1139 Kar.
SECTION-2(e)
Statement of A/C prepared by a foreign branch of Pakistan Bank admissible as could not be regarded as
foreign
bank.
1990
CLC
1139
Kar.

SECTION
Borrower
includes
PLD
PLD
PLD
PLD
PLD
NLR
NLR
NLR
1990 MLD 2226

surety
or
1990
1971
1983
1985
1990
1979
1984
1989

indemnifier

piercing
Kar.
SC
SC
SC
Kar.
Civil
SCJ
AC

through

2(b)
veil.
186
585
457
97
186/190
544
403
195

corporate

SECTION
2(2)
&
13.
Contradictory pleas date of decree was not a date of hearing on that day hospitalized heart attack
no certificate subsequent certificate being patient of diabetes n o interference warranted.
1994 CLD 276 Lah. (D.B).
SECTION 2(2): CPC O-37 R-3; O-34 R-4.
Defendant admitting plaintiffs claim and being ready to repay provided easy installments given and no
interest for period pending suit court allowed plaintiff no order passed re-mortgaged property High
Court in appeal passing preliminary decree keeping mortgaged properties intact plea that consent
judgment could not be modified by H.C. had no substance as no consent on behalf of plaintiff.
1994 SCMR 362
SECTION
As
to
change
PLD
PLD
1985
PLD 1984 Lah. 417.

of

6(1)
forum
1992
1986
CLC

from

&
civil

6
Special
Pesh.
Lah.
2932

to

Court

(4)
Banking.
87
42.
Lah.

SECTION-6(4)
Suit in which existence of loan obtained is sought to be set at naught is barred before civil court.
1990 MLD 1776.
SECTION
6(1)
(a)
&
6(4).
Special Court Banking has the exclusive jurisdiction when borrower is the plaintiff and the dispute arises
out
loan/finance
transaction
and
civil
courts
have
no
jurisdiction.
1993
SCMR
1996
Judgment of S.C. reported as 1993 SCMR 1996 interpreted by Justice Malik Qayyum in W.P.
No.15602/93 vide order dated 31-05-1994 unreported same order in W.P.No.16885/93.
See
PLD
1993
Lah.
328.
See 1993 MLD 1031 Lah.
SECTION 6(4); CPC O-7. R-11; Constitution (1973) Art.185(3).
Suit before civil judge for declaration that loan agreement with defendant Bank was illegal, ultra vires,
result of under influence and ineffective plaint liable to be rejected under CL.(d) of O-7, R-11 CPC being
barred by any law.
1994 SCMR 1970
1993 SCMR 1996
1993 MLD 1031 (Lah)
PLD 1993 Lah 328
1990 MLD 1776.
SECTION 6(4), 13(a) & 2(f).

Amendment Act (SVII) of 1992; Amendment II of 1983; as to pecuniary jurisdiction of High Court
and Special Court Banking Explained

What is retrospective or retroactive law and its effects.

The object of presumption against retrospective construction is to protect the vested or existing
rights. However, it would have no application of the courts as there is no vested right in procedure.

PLD

1994

Kar.

258

SECTION-6,7
(2)
&
12.
Leave goods of considerable value pledged with Bank Custody with Bank could be sold by Bank
having raised order to deposit entire amount in dispute claim an unbearable condition for leave leave
granted
on
furnishing
security
to
the
satisfaction
of
trial
court.
1987
MLD
399
Lah.
PLD 1963 SC 163.
SECTION
6
&
7
(2).
Grounds for leave e.g. personal guarantees have become time barred, suit based on fictitious documents,
incorrect statement of A/C containing unauthorized enteries, entire loan period. Suit filed for
Rs.1,158,420/- borrower admitted outstanding Rs.678,745/-, hypothecation, guarantee pronote not
denied, incorrect entry in statement not pinpointed no substantial question of law or fact involved
leave
rightly
refused

appeal
dismissed.
1992 CLC 1906 Pesh. (DB).
SECTION
7
H.N
(f)
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 79 law favour disposal of lis on hearing not on

technicalities

PLD 1994 Kar. 275

end

justifies

means

not

vice

versa.

SECTION
7(2)
Even if suit not based on negotiable instrument i.e. bill of exchange, Hundi, Promissory Note, Special
Court obliged to follow summary procedure of O-37 CPC in all suits before it including suits based on
mortgages
of
all
kinds
on
statement
of
account.
PLD 1995 SC 362
SECTION
CPC
applicable
except
PLD
PLD
P.
P. 1993 Lah. 706 H.N. (k).

so
far
1994
1978
1972

as

excluded

by

provisions
Kar.
SC
Lah.

of

the

7(2)
Ordinance.
275
220
603

SECTION
7(2)
In case of default in obtaining leave or failing to apply for obtaining leave allegations in the plaint shall
be
deemed
to
be
admitted
and
plaintiff
shall
be
entitled
to
decree.
1992 CLC 1906 Pesh. 8.
SECTION 7(2)
Procedure of O-37 CPC having been made applicable it is only an enabling provision for procedure
does not mean suit falls under O-37 in substance, never ART. 64-A of Limitation (3-years) not applicable
rather Art-132 (12-years) applicable.
KLR 1993 civil cases 169 (Lah).
SECTION 7(2)
Procedure of O-37 CPC having been made applicable it is only an enabling provision for procedure
does not mean suit falls under O-37 in substance, never ART. 64-A of Limitation (3-years) not applicable
rather Art-132 (12-years) applicable.
KLR 1993 civil cases 169 (Lah).
SECTION 7(2)
Procedure contention that special court should have followed procedure of O-34 CPC in suit based on
mortgage repelled.
1983 CLC 2828 Lah. H.N(a).
SECTION 7(2)
There are suits based on mortgage and there are suits based on statements of accounts.
1992 CLC 1906 Pesh. H.N.(b).
SECTION
7(2)
In conditional leave to defend the security would include the security already furnished against loan.
1992 CLC 1964 Kar. (DB).
SECTION
7(2)
High Court acting as Special Court should have given adjustment of the value of the mortgaged property
while fixing the security for granting leave to defend in suit.
1991 SCMR 33.

CONTRARY Grant of leave to appear and defend suit question of bank loan adequately secured by
mortgage of immovable property held, it was quality of defence and not extent of security which should
be
governing
factor.
1985 CLC 2467 Lah. (DB)
CONTRARY Even in a mortgage suit where loan is fully secured, leave cannot be granted as a matter
of right but has to make out a case for grant of leave. General principle for granting leave enunciated.
1986 CLC 1086 Kar.
SECTION
7(2),
CPC
O-37
R-2.
Leave to defend granted to the defendant without imposing any condition as the loan fully secured under
a
registered
mortgage
more
in
value
then
claim
in
suit.
PLD
1984
Kar.
27
NLR
1989
A.C.
101.
1984
SCMR
634
1991 MLD 2599.
SECTION 7(2); CPC O-37 R-1,2,3.
Fact that there existed valid mortgage which had not shown to be sufficient to satisfy claim, necessitated
grant of leave to defendants/guarantors on furnishing surety of specifies amount.
1991 MLD 2599
In case of sufficient security unconditional leave.
1991 MLD Kar. 2601
SECTION
8
Special court required to pass preliminary decree in suit founded on mortgage failed to pass preliminary
decree in impugned judgment it said exparte decree was final decree defendants deprived of
opportunity to pay into couirt decree to be set aside valid decree a condition precedent of auction
proceedings.
P.1993 Lah. 706 HN (i) (DB).
SECTION 8(2) INTEREST VALIDITY
Provisions of Ord. 1979 are protected inspite of Art.2-A & 270-A of Constitution Interest though
unIslamic could be granted.
1992 CLC 1906 Pesh. H.N (d)
PLD 1987 Kar. 296
PLD 1987 Kar. 612.
SECTION
8(2)
INTEREST
Property sought to be auctioned is for recovery of interest Question of interest/compound interest
pending
before
Supreme
Court

auction
could
not
be
done.
NLR 1994 CLJ 300.
SECTION
Contravention
of
provisions
PLD 1993 Lah. 706 HN (m).

of

O-21

8(3)
R-66

sale

would

be

Execution.
rendered
nullity.

SECTION 8(3) Execution.

According to O-21 R-67 read with R-54(2) CPC proclamation had to be made by beat of drum, copy
affixed on property and court house U/O 21 R-68 there should be an interval of 30 days between sale

and the proclamation. Rule 69 lays where sale through auction was adjourned for more than 7-days, fresh
proclamation should be issued unless waived by judgment debtor.
PLD 1993 Lah. 706 HN (m).
SECTION 8(3) Execution.
Non publication of sale proclamation by beat of drum, had caused serious injury to aggrieved persons
omission along with other illegalities no substantial compliance proclamation under O-21 R-66
appears to be mandatory.
PLD 1993 Lah. 706 HN (m).
SECTION 8(3) Execution
As to mode and purpose of fixing reserve price for auction.
PLD 1993 Lah. 706 HN (n).
SECTION 8(3) Execution
Non-deposit of specific amount by auction purchaser within requisite time would render sale void.
PLD 1993 Lah. 706 HN (n).
SECTION 8(3) Execution
O-21 R-89, 90, 91 & 92. Limitation Act Sec-18. Where a party was kept away from knowledge of their
right to sue or file an application, because of fraud of other party, time would run from date of discovery of
fraud exparte decree and subsequent auction proceedings and confirmation of sale set aside.
P.1993 Lah. 706 HN (j) (k).
SECTION
8(3)
Execution.
Material irregularities and fraud in publishing & conducting sale. Sale by auction could not be sustained.
PLD 1993 Lah. 706 HN (d).
SECTION
Contravention of provisions
PLD 1993 Lah. 706 (HN) (m).

of

O-21

8(3)
Rule-66

sale

would

be

Execution
rendered nullity.

SECTION
8(3)
Execution
According to O-21 Rule-67 read with R.54(2) CPC proclamation had to be made by beat of drum, copy
affixed on property and court house U/O 21 R-68 there should be an interval of 30-days between sale
and the proclamation. Rule 69 lays where sale through auction was adjourned for more than 7-days, fresh
proclamation
should
be
issued
unless
waived
by
judgment
debtor.
PLD 1993 Lah. 706 HN (Muhammad).
SECTION 8(3) Execution
Non publication of sale proclamation by beat of drum, had caused serious injury to aggrieved persons
omission alongwith other illegalities no substantial compliance proclamation under O-21 R-66 appears
to be mandatory.
PLD 1993 Lah. 706 HN (m).
SECTION 8(3) Execution
As to mode and purpose of fixing reserve price for auction.
PLD 1993 Lah. 706 HN (n).
SECTION
8(3)
Execution
Non-deposit of specific amount by auction purchaser within requisite time would render sale void.
PLD 1993 Lah. 706 HN (n).

SECTION
8(3)
Execution
O-21 R-89, 90, 91 & 92. Limitation Act Sec.18. Where a party was kept away from knowledge of their right
to sue or file an application, because of fraud of other party, time would run from date of discovery of
fraud exparte decree and subsequent auction proceedings and confirmation of sale set aside.
PLD 1993 Lah. 706 HN (p) (q) & (r).
SECTION
11
&12
(REVIEW)
High Court, while acting as a Special Court, has power under S.114, CPC to review its orders and
judgments Reasons for exercise of power by Special Banking Courts to review orders and judgments
stated.
PLD 1995 Kar. 577, PLD 2000 Lah. 162.
SECTION
12
APPEAL
High Court directing to deposit decretal amount in cash before appeal could be admitted to hearing plea
that U/S 12(5) appellants could furnish security instead such contention without merit Petitioner
having offered two properties as security one subject of litigation in some court while the other fell short
of
decretal
amount

High
Court
correct.
1994 SCMR 1747.
SECTION
12
APPEAL;
7(2);
Provisions of appeal available not availed
been challenged in appropriate proceedings
appropriate
forum

1994 CLC 2150 Kar.

O-37
R-2
CPC

WRIT
JURISDICTION
no writ conditional order for leave to defend could have
no writ, question of lack of jurisdiction not raised before
estopped
to
raise
in
writ.

SECTION 12 APPEAL; 7(2); O-37 R-2 CPC WRIT JURISDICTION.

Writ Writ against order of conditional leave to defend, no appeal available, writ competent if order
arbitrary,
fanciful,
capricious
exercise
of
discretion.
1983 CLC 2828 Lah.
SECTION
12
APPEAL;
7(2);
O-37
R-2
CPC

WRIT
JURISDICTION
Validity of condition of deposit for granting leave challenged in writ no valuation of mortgaged properties
on record writ converted into appeal and allowed to extent that he would deposit cash of specified
amount
in
20-days.
1994 SCMR 512.
SECTION
12
APPEAL;
7(2);
O-37
R-2
CPC

WRIT
JURISDICTION
Conditional order for leave to defend directing deposit of amount to defend. Suit not appealable cannot be
questioned
in
writ.
PLD 1982 Lah. 353.
SECTION 12 APPEAL; 7(2); O-37 R-2 CPC WRIT JURISDICTION
Interlocutory orders not appealable no writ.
PLD 1982 Lah. 353.
SECTION
12
APPEAL;
7(2);
O-37
R-2
CPC

WRIT
JURISDICTION
Granting of conditional or unconditional leave discretion of court to be exercised judicially not arbitrarily or
capriciously
or
in
a
manner
defeating
ends
of
justice.
No
writ.
PLD 1985 Kar. 178.
SECTION 12 APPEAL; 7(2); O-37 R-2 CPC WRIT JURISDICTION
Order to deposit extra amount for granting leave not open to writ.
NLR 1982 Civil 315.

SECTION
12
APPEAL;
7(2);
O-37
R-2
CPC

WRIT
JURISDICTION
Constitutional jurisdiction in Banking matters not to be exercised in interlocutory matters, principles stated.
1986 MLD 2941.
SECTION 12 APPEAL; 7(2); O-37 R-2 CPC WRIT JURISDICTION
Challenging condition of furnishing Bank Guarntee, writ not maintainable.
1989 CLC 1535.
SECTION-12 WRIT MAINTAINABLE
Impugned order passed in excess of jurisdiction, arbitrary and flouting law, capricious to be interfered by
H.C in W.P.
NLR 1982 Civil 97.
PLD 1989 Kar. 157.
1982 CLC 1625.
1982 CLC 1625.
NLR 1982 Civil 1.
SECTION
12(5)
Word security used in Sec.12(5) would include even security which was originally accepted against loan,
hence
to
be
considered
as
security
in
filing
appeal.
1992
CLC
1964
Kar.
(DB).
1984 SCMR 634 (FB).
SECTION 12(5)
Appeal penal in nature benefit of doubt to be given to judgment debtor judgment debtor or
security at discretion of court where order to furnish security was subject to stay by S.C. after that H.C.
may extend time to furnish.
PLD 1994 Kar. 296
SECTION
12(5)
Appeal can be presented without security but cannot be admitted without security security would include
the
security
which
was
originally
accepted
against
loan.
PLD 1988 Kar. 628 (FB).
DEBTOR MUST SEEK THE CREDITOR
PLD 1973 AJK 21
PLD 1967 Lah. 928.
PLD 1963 Kar.161
PLD 1959 Kar. 348.
PLD 1952 Lah. 45.
AIR 1927 PC 156
AIR 1957 Mad. 201.
AIR 1937 R 433.
PLD 1976 S.C. 790.
O.37 R.4 & O.9 R.13 special circumstances admittedly not residing at address given in plaint and
notices issued to at the time of filing suit plaintiff under obligation to have given in plaint latest &
accurate address Bank making correspondence not only at L but also at official address of one of the
defendants exparte set aside.
PLD
1993
Lah.
706
H.N.
(a)
(D.B.)
Debtor seeks the creditor principle could be applied only where creditor had no laison with debtor and
latter would be under obligation to keep former abreast of his address.

PLD 1993 Lah. 706 H.N. (b)

When address patently insufficient, or material defect, court not bound to take steps for service.
PLD
1993
Lah.
706
H.N.
(c)
Where reparts of process server and postman indicated that defendants were not residing at a given
address, proper course to ask plaintiff to supply correct address, plaintiff to either supply correct address
or to show to satisfaction of court that he had no other address where plaintiff intentionally not provided
other address or suppressed same, subsequent exparte proceedings nullity.
PLD 1993 Lah. 706 H.N. (d)
PLEADINGS
Decision of court could not be based on ground not taken in pleadings and any evidence on such not
taken ground to be ignored.
1991 CLC 140 Lah.
PLD 1976 SC 469.
1978 SCMR 85.
1987 CLC 157.
1988 CLC 337
PLD 1986 SC (AJ & K)
1989 CLC 1356 ref.
SETTING ASIDE LIMITATION.
Art. 164 of Limitation Act.
Defendants admittedly not served at their changed address which was within knowledge of plaintiff
limitation
would
start
from
date
of
knowledge.
PLD 1993 Lah. 706 H.N. (g).
Plea of non-service of notice being out of country not taken before not allowed.
1987 SCMR 716.
SET
OFF
Amount of set off, equitable compensation/damages allegedly accrued for non-disbursment of entire loan
disallowed
being
not
in
pleadings.
1991 CLC 140 Lah.
EXECUTION
Special court required to pass preliminary decree in suit founded on mortgage failed to pass preliminary
decree in impugned judgment it said exparte decree was final decree - defendants deprived of
opportunity to pay into court decree to be set aside valid decree a condition precedent of auction
proceedings.
PLD 1993 Lah. 706 HN (i) (DB).
For the purpose of execution of decree provisions of O-21 could be resorted to. In case of conflict
ordinance
to
prevail.
Court
could
not
pick
and
chose
provisions
of
CPC.
PLD 1993 Lah. 706 HN (j) (k).
Material irregularities and fraud in publishing & conducting sale. Sale by auction could not be sustained.
PLD 1993 Lah. 706 HN (d).

Contravention
of
provisions
PLD 1993 Lah. 706 HN (m).

of

O-21,

R-66

sale

would

be

rendered

nullity.

According to O-21 R-67 read with R-54(2) CPC proclamation had to be made by beat of drum, copy
affixed on property and Court House, under O-21 Rule-68 there should be an interval of 30 days between
sale and the proclamation. Rule 69 lays where sale through auction was adjourned for more than 7-days,
fresh
proclamation
should
be
issued
unless
waived
by
judgment
debtor.
PLD 1993 Lah. 706 HN (m).
Non publication of sale proclamation by beat of drum, had caused serious injury to aggrieved persons
omission along with other illegalities no substantial compliance proclamation under O-21 R-66
appears
to
be
mandatory.
PLD 1993 Lah. 706 HN (m).
As
to
mode
and
PLD 1993 Lah. 706 HN (m).

purpose

of

fixing

reserve

price

for

auction.

Non deposit of specific amount by auction purchaser within requisite time would render sale void.
PLD 1993 Lah. 706 HN (n).
O-21
R-89,
90,
91
&
92
Limitation
Act,
Section
18.
Where a party was kept away from knowledge of their right to sue or file an applicatyion, because of fraud
of other party, time would run from date of discovery of fraud exparte decree and subsequent auction
proceedings
and
confirmation
of
sale
set
aside.
PLD 1993 Lah. 706 HN (p) (q) & (r).
BANKING COMPANIES (RECOVERY OF LOANS) RULES 1980
RULE
8;
CPC
O-5,
R-20.
Concept of personal service as envisaged in O.5, R-20 has no place and reference in Rule 8.
PLD 1994 Kar. 303.
RULE
8:
CPC
O-37,
R-2;
Limitation
Act
Sec.5.
Leave to appear not filed within 10-days In application for condonation of delay contended that the
applicant does not subscribe to newspaper Morning News in which notice appeared No ground for
condonation
of
delay.
PLD
1994
Kar.
303.
PLD
1990
SC
497.
1993
MLD
54
1988
CLC
1068
1991 CLC 1146 Rel.
Vires
of
Rule-8.
It neither contravenes provisions of CPC nor is repugnant to provisions of the Ord.1979 As per section
129 of CPC High Court can amend Ist Schedule of CPC likewise exercise of rule making authority U/S 15
of Ord. 1979 can arguably said to have been invoked by Govt. However, precusions envisaged in CPC
would equally apply for example, a female member even if adult cannot be effectively served nor can rule
15
of
Order
V
CPC
be
unceremoniously
be
resorted
to.
PLD 1994 Kar. 275 H.N (c).
RULE-8;
O-5,
R-20
CPC
Publication according to requirements of law would arise presumption of due service such service to
quality for necessary presumption requirement of adequacy of publication sufficient to carry knowledge to

defendant should be met, if anot, such presumption would, subject to the facts give way.
PLD 1994 Kar. 275 H.N. (d).
RULE-8
If presumption element of service by publication was not lifted from O-5 R-20 CPC. Then rule-8 standing
by itself would have implied effective personal knowledge through publication as well viz in cases where
service in other modes could neither be shown nor presumed Rule-8 enjoins not only effective personal
service but also where service constructively was to be presumed in view of deeming effect in such rule
as inferred from O-5 R-20 CPC to ensure that constructive service in probability sufficient to bring
necessary
knowledge.
PLD 1994 Kar. 275 H.N. (e).
RULE-8
Non appearance inspite of process by three modes and if positive repots of service through bailiff or by
registered post was not received at least one more attempt should be made through the said two modes
and upon failure of such repeat service matter be placed in court for necessary orders object is not to
negate effect of publication which should continue, but merely to forestall possible controversies in case
deeming effect if publication subsequently is effaced such made would apply prospectively there need
i.e.
no
repetition
of
publication
unless
first
publication
was
faulty.
PLD 1994 Kar.275 H.N.(g)
RULE-8
Process not sent by registered post not full compliance of Rule-8 exparte decree set aside.
1991 MLD 2037.
RULE
8
Regarding service provisions of CPC fade into insignificance publication on higher pedestal as good as
personal
service.
1991 MLD 1803
RULE
8
Any on of three modes good service copy of plaint not necessary with publication.
1990 MLD 1792
Rule
8
As
Amended
by
SRO
71(i)/88
dated
31.01.1988.
Ord.37, Rule 2 Appendix B Form IV fact that copy of plaint cannot be closed with publication no effect on
validity
of
service

any
one
mode
good
service.
PLD
1990
SC
497
1991 CLC 438 Kar.
RULE
8
Service of defendant by any of the three modes namely by registered A.D., through bailiff personally or by
publication.
1991
MLD
1803
Kar.
(Provisions
of
CPC
fade
into
insignificant
also
see
PLD
1981
Rev.5
Pb).
1990
MLD
1792
Kar.
(In
publication
copy
of
plaint
not
necessary)
PLD
1990
SC
497
(In
publication
copy
of
plaint
not
necessary)
1989
MLD
995
Lah.
PLD 1987 Kar. 206.
AGAINST
1987 CLC 1002 Kar.

Mere denial not having read publication, uncorroborated in any other manner cannot be given effect.
PLD 1989 Lah. 213.
Nothing in law that summon should be published in language known to defendant.
1988 CLC 1068 Kar.
Defendants ordered to be served by three modes process never sent through registered post, no full
compliance,
such
exparte
decree
rightly
set
aside.
1991 MLD 2037.
10 days will
1988
1986
P.
P.
1984 CLC 374.

not

commence

unless

summon
CLC
CLC

in

1986
1984

proper

form

attached

with

Kar.
Kar.

plaint.
292
2236
444
252.

SECTION
7,
R-8.
Summons through bailiff and registered A.D. sent with plaint defendants could not be served
ultimately served by pasting a copy of notice at outer door Held there was nothing to prevent
defendants
to
make
application
for
leave.
Failure to issue summons strictly as per Form IV Appendix B CPC notice not deemed effected.
Pesh. 1990.
BANKING TRIBUNALS ORDINANCE, 1984
SECTION 2(c) (e)
Customer beneficiary, surety, indemnifier, lifting corporate veil.
PLD 1990 Kar. 186
PLD 1971 SC 585
PLD 1983 SC 457
PLD 1985 SC 97
PLD 1990 Kar. 186/198
NLR 1979 CIVIL 544
NLR 1984 SCJ 403
NLR 1989 A.C. 195
1990 MLD 2226.
SECTION 2(c)
Jurisdiction Contract Act Sec.62 NOVATION in case of novation Tribunal required to look into new
agreement to determine whether it is finance.
1994 CLC 2272
1990 MLD 1842
1990 MLD 857
SECTION 5 & 2 (c).
Suit for damages filed by customer cannot be consolidated with recovery suit filed by Bank distinct
scope of Ordinance 1979 and Ordinance 1984 having exclusive jurisdiction.
PLD 1995 Lah. 360.
SECTION 5(i) (d) Applicability of CPC.
PLD 1994 Kar. 275
PLD 1993 Lah. 706 H.N.(k).

SECTION
6(4)
Rejection of plea Contract Act 2(h) Bank failing to advance entire loan plea that defendant could not
be compelled to repay not justified covenants conditional performance of one defendant upon
performance
of
other.
1993 SCMR 441 (d).
Total
sanctioned
1991 CLC 140 Lah.

loan

not

disbursed

interest

on

entire

amount

disallowed.

SECTION 6 & 9
Tribunal decreed Banks suit, declined claim for mark up. Claim not contrary to State Banks Circular
B.C.D.31 dated 24.12.1980 not denial of borrowers as to mark up. Tribunals observation that when
payment was not forthcoming Bank should have filed suit immediately did not justify rejection of claim.
1994 CLC 1 Kar.
Vires of Sections 6 & 9 B.T.O. 1984 covered by Article 270-A of constitution for striking of provisions
of B.T.O. Article 270-A itself would have to be struck down B.T.O. intra vires of Constitution NOT
CONTRARY TO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN CONSTITUTION.
PLD 1995 Kar. 409
Art.270-A inserted w.e.f. 30.12.1985 all laws made between 05.07.1977 to 13.12.1985 affirmed and
validated could not be called in question in any court Banking Ordinance, 1984, thus, protected under
Constitution

Hence,
no
question
to
Sections
6&9
of
the
Ordinance,
1984.
1995
MLD
1546
ALSO
SEE
1989
MLD
1058
PLD
1982
Kar.
513
PLD
1989
Lah.
69
PLD
1995
Lah.
6
1989 CLC 524
Assistant Commissioner (Collector) directed to pay amount in question as arrears of land revenue in
installments payment of whole amount by Banking Tribunal Pleas of Resjudicata not available in the
suit
filed
for
recovery.
1995 MLD 1546
SECTION-7
Surety cannot
1995 CLC 973

be

prosecuted

under

this

section

which

is

applicable

only

to

loanee.

SECTION
Contractual obligation. Charges/costs expenses & commission sustained or incurred b y and provided in
the
contract

Bank
was
within
its
competence
to
charge
the
same.
1992 CLC 1906 para 11 at 1912.
SECTION
9
Alternate adequate remedy constitutional petition not substitute of appeal or revision Condition of
deposit
of
the
decretal
amount
for
filing
appeal
could
not
be
avoided.
PLD 1995 Kar. 409
SECTION
9
&
10
APPEAL

WRIT
JURISDICTION.
Interlocutory order No remedy or revision provided no writ where it will defeat legislative intent.
PLD
1994
Kar.
67
PLD 1995 Kar. 409

ALSO
SEE
WRIT
JURISDICTION
UNDER
(RECOVERY OF LOANS) ORDINANCE 1979 AS FOLLOWS:

BANKING

COMPANIES

SECTION
12
APPEAL;
7(2)
O-37
R-2
CPC

WRIT
JURISDICTION
Provisions of appeal available not availed not writ conditional order for leave to defend could have
been challenged in appropriate proceedings no writ. Question of lack of jurisdiction not raised before
appropriate
forum

estopped
to
raise
in
writ.
1994 CLC 2150 Kar.
SECTION
12
APPEAL;
7(2)
O-37
R-2
CPC

WRIT
JURISDICTION
Writ writ against order of conditional leave to defend. No appeal available. Writ competent if order
arbitrary,
fanciful,
capricious
expercise
of
discretion.
1983 CLC 2829 Lah.
SECTION
12
APPEAL;
7(2)
O-37
R-2
CPC

WRIT
JURISDICTION
Validity of condition of deposit for granting leave challenged in writ no valuation of mortgaged properties
on record writ converted into appeal and allowed to extent that he would deposit cash of specified
amount
in
20
days.
1994 SCMR 512.
SECTION
12
APPEAL;
7(2)
O-37
R-2
CPC

WRIT
JURISDICTION
Conditional order for leave to defend directing deposit of amount to defend suit not appealable cannot be
questioned
in
writ.
PLD 1982 Lah. 353.
SECTION 12 APPEAL; 7(2) O-37 R-2 CPC WRIT JURISDICTION
Interlocutory orders not appealable no writ.
PLD 1982 Lah. 353.
SECTION
12
APPEAL;
7(2)
O-37
R-2
CPC

WRIT
JURISDICTION
Granting of conditional or unconditional leave discretion of court to be exercised judicially not arbitrarily or
capriciously
or
in
a
manner
defeating
ends
of
justice.
No
writ.
PLD 1985 Kar. 178.
SECTION
12
APPEAL;
Order
to
deposit
extra
NLR 1982 Civil 315.

7(2)
O-37
amount
for

R-2
CPC

granting
leave

WRIT
JURISDICTION
not
open
to
writ.

SECTION
12
APPEAL;
7(2)
O-37
R-2
CPC

WRIT
JURISDICTION
Constitutional jurisdiction in Banking matters not to be exercised in interlocutory matters, principles stated.
1986 MLD 2941.
SECTION
12
APPEAL;
Challenging
condition
of
1989 CLC 1535.

7(2)
O-37
R-2
CPC

WRIT
JURISDICTION
furnishing
Bank
Guarantee,
writ
not
maintainable.

SECTION
12

WRIT
MAINTAINABLE
Impugned order passed in excess of jurisdiction, arbitrary and flouting law, capricious to be interfered by
H.C.
in
W.P.
NLD
1982
Civil
97
PLD
1989
Kar.
157
1982
CLC
2367
1982
CLC
1625
NLR 1982 Civil 1.

SECTION
9(1)
&
6(6)
APPEAL
In order to appeal must deposit with Tribunal suit amount or decree amount shall in 9(1) mandatory;
Section 9(i) does not provide for any other sufficient security Appeal whether on merits or on question of
jurisdiction

entertainment
only
if
decretal
amount
deposited.
PLD
1994
Pes.
233
1994
CLC
2292
Kar.
PLD 1995 Kar. 409.
SECTION
10
(REVIEW)
Sec. 10 B.T.O. being similar to Sec.11 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979,
the Tribunal has the right to review its orders in view of PLD 1995 Kar. 577 which states, High Court, while
acting as a Special Court, has power under Section 144 CPC to review its order and judgments
Reasons for exercise of power by Special Banking Courts to review orders and judgments stated.
PLD 1995 Kar. 577.
SECTION
11
(4)
LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES

SECTION
74
CONTRACT
ACT
Liquidated damages have to be proved liquidated damages only follow up after passing of decree if and
when decretal amount remained unsatisfied beyond 30 days. An application has to be made.
1993 MLD 1571 (b).
BANKER
&
CUSTOMER
Mercantile Practice Blank documents can be filled by creditor within reasonable time.
PLD 1989 Kar. 371.
Filling
in
PLD
PLD
1989
1987 CLC 288 Kar.

of

promissory

notes

1986
1990
CLC

Lah.
700

valid.
Kar.464
99
Kar.

O.1,
R-10
CPC.
Manager at the time of deposit not necessary party Bank will be responsible for deposit.
Misjoinder
Withholding documents by Bank presumption would rise against Bank claim that customer deposited
amounts in Bank paying in slips signed by Manager plea that manager alone was not authorized not
available.
PLD 1994 Kar. 323.
BANKERS
BOOKS
EVIDENCE
ACT
OF
1981
Statement of A/C presumption of correctness In recovery of loan cases based on statement of
accounts maintained by banks to which presumption of correctness was attached under Bankers Books
Evidence Act. Defendant seeking leave must disclose plausible defence or show substantial question of
fact
or
law.
1992 CLC 1906 Pesh.
Certified copy of the Bankers Books dispenses with production of original books of accounts and is
admissible
in
evidence.
PLD 1983 Kar. 431.
Certified copy of entry in a Bankers Book can be received in legal proceedings as evidence of existence
of
such
entry
like
the
original
one.
1983 CLC 1297

Entry
alone
is
PLD
PLD
PLD 1985 Lah. 89

not

sufficient
1966
1972

to

charge

with

liability
SC
Lah.

without

corroboration.
684
311

CAPITAL ISSUES (CONTINUANCE OF CONTROL) ACT

(XXIX OF 1947)
SECTION
3(4)
&
6
Legality or orders issued and passed by Federal Govt. in respect of issue of right shares could be
scrutinized and examined by High Court in writ jurisdiction to ascertain validity of such orders on the
touchstone of guidelines issue by the Govt. under Section 3(4) of the Act.
1995 MLD 1950 (Lah.)
OFFENCES IN RESPECT OF BANKS (SPECIAL COURTS) ORDINANCE, 1984.
I.D.B.P. ORDINANCE, 1961.
THE BANKING COMPANIES (RECOVERY OF LOANS, ADVANCES, CREDITS AND FINANCES) ACT
1997 (ACT XV OF 1997)
Section-7(2)
Banking
Act,
1997
C.P.C. primarily is procedural law though it has some substantive provisions. Section-7(2) makes C.P.C.
available. with respect to which procedure has not been provided for in this Act.
Right to claim review of any decision of a court of law, like the right to appeal is a substantive right and not
a mere matter of procedure as such neither of them is unless it has been conferred by law.
PLD
1970
S.C
1
1987
MLD
505
PLD 1965 Lah 183
No power or right vests in the court, tribunal or authority unless such power is specifically given by the
very statute to that creates it.
1985
PLD
PLD
1990 MLD 909

CLD
1981
1980

S.C
Lah

2885
94
414

Power of review must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication.

PLD 1970 S.C. 1273
Section 10.
Contract Act (IX of 1872) Sect. 56
Constitution Art. 185(3).
- Serious and bonafide dispute in P.L.A will depend on the merits of each case.
- Increase in custom duty & sales tax not valid ground for grant of leave.
Pakland Cement Vs. Citibank,
2001 SCMR 1341.

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS (RECOVERY OF FINANCES) ORDINANCE (XLVI OF 2001).

Preamble: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)
Section-5 Condonation not applicable.
(2004
CLD
817)
Preamble: Ordinance having no retrospective applicability-could not be used to attach property
transferred.
2004
CLD
1600
Preamble: Ordinance not retrospective in operation.
2004
Preamble: Section-10 Order-7 Rule-11 CPC.

(Buttar

&

Mazammal)

CLD

1600

Question of rejection of plaint for lack of jurisdiction cannot be raised until P.L.A is decided and leave be
obtained.
2004 CLD 726
Sections-2
(A)
&
9.
Underwriting Agreement-Underwriting not covered under the definition of Finance-recovery suit converted
into ordinary civil suit.
2004
NBP
2000
Avari
Hotels
2003
Bank Alfalah vs. Iftikhar A. Malik.

CLD
VS.
YLR

689
S.G.Fibre.
2407
I.CP.
363

vs.
CLD

Amount of liability has to be legally determined first either by the Banking Court or the Criminal Court
before
taking
action
under
the
NAB
Ordinance.
PLD
2004
Kar.
638
Aasim Textile v. NAB.
Section-5
Cases
finally
2004
2004
2004
2004 CLD 87
Section-7
No
2004
2004
2004 CLD 927
Section-7.
No
2004
005

decided

under

BTO,

1984-

part

PLD
CLD
CLD

further

mark
PLD
CLD

liquidated
PLD
CLD

&

closed

transactions.
1146
1589
1557

up.
953
1150

damages.
927,1150956
1543

2005
2004 CLD 15711563

CLD

1588

Section-7.
Certain amounts deposited by the defendant which had not been created into account series question of
law
and
fact
raisedLeave
to
be
granted.
2000 CLD 1561
Section-7-3(2).
Interest granted from the date of filing of suit and not from the disbursement. Up held.
2004 CLD 968.
Section-7
&
9.
Limitation
Act
(ix)
of
1908.
Void order- Limitation would run from the date of knowledge and aggrieved party should approach
competent
forum
for
setting
aside.
PLD
1997
S.C
397
2004 CLD 144
Section-7
&
No dismissal of suit for non-prosecution on the
2004
CLD
2004
CLD
U.B.L v. Khawaja Radio House.
Sections-7,10
Judgment
not
2004 CLD 811

speaking

judgment

date

&
as

of

arguments

a judicial

on

order set

the

10.
P.L.A.
963
1609

13.
aside.

Section-9
Riba Interest Article-203-G. Constitution High Court had no jurisdiction to determine validity of charging of
interest.
2004 CLD 947
Credit
Services
2004 CLD 1247

Card
rendered

by

Facility.
dismissed.

bank

Punjab Small Industries Corporation Article falls under Banking Company as well as finance Institution.
2004
CLD
1424
2005 CLD 1790
Section-12(2)
Dissenting 2000
2004
2004
Dissenties 2005 CLD 438.
Appeal
against
2004 CLD 748.
Territorial
Section-20

C.P.C. Not
MLD
CLD
CLD

dismissal

of

of

12(2)

applicable.
421
279
1573

CPC

C.P.C

not

competent.

Jurisdiction
applies.

2004
Also 2004 CLD 1465.

CLD

Section-9
Guarantor for original
2004 CLD 1472
Guarantor
2004 CLD 1289
Section-9 No
2005
2004
H.B.Z
2004
Pak
2005 CLD 581.

loan,

Contract
Guarantor

even

mark

having

1266

if

on

mark

Act
nexus with

no

subsequent

employee

up
CLD
CLD

or

is

beyond

v. Orient

Section-127
loan-no liable.

liable.

agreed

Rice
CLD
Acres

Green

v.

period.
444
1289
Mills
889
U.B.L

Service fee by Credit Card Cos. not an interest- card holder agreed to service fee- Legal.
2004 CLD 1247
Section-9
&
4
CPC
Order-32.
Even if no PLA filed, suit to be decided after considering the plaint and the documents relied upon.
2004 CLD 587.
Section
9
&
10.
Disputes between two groups of the shareholders of the borrowing company in civil court and before
Companies Judge have to effect and the PLA was rejected- Appeal dismissed.
2004
CLD
1620
S.A Hameed v. A.B.L.
Section
9
&
10.
Even if the Bank had shown the amount as bad debt in annual report only for the purpose of accountingthe
loan
was
still
recoverable.
2004 CLD 1266.
Section
9,15,21
Specific
Relief
Act,
Section-42
&
54.
Suit for declaration, injunction and rendition of accounts- Banks statement of A/C not conclusive as
cyclostyle document. Bank had to justify by independent evidence entries in statement of A/C.
2004 CLD 808.
Suit
not supported
2004 CLD 587
Section
Service only by
PLD
(Ahmad
2004 CLD 1555, 771.

by

publication-

statement

by

Antoes

any

one
1990

of

of

A/D

the

could

modes

Case

is

not

sufficient

proceed.

9(3).
service.
S.C.497
referred)

Amendment in PLA- to the within the corners of material appended with PLA-Discretion of Court.
2004 SCMR 111

Leave
Requisite
Plausible
1986 1086 Kar.

raise

to
questions
could

various
defense-leave

of

law
be

&

Defend
fact.
granted.

If he could raise good defense or could raise a triable issue or disclose such facts which would be
deemed
to
be
sufficient
to
entitle
him
to
defend.
1987 CLD 288.
The defense
raised
PLD 1987 Lah 290.
Section-10
Additional lease
2004 CLD 1213
Conditional
leave
2004 CLD 532
Section-10
Non-filing
of
2004
ABL vs. Mohib.

for

leave

to

defend

Contract
Actrental & liquidated damages

to

PLA

amended

on

deposit

application

Section-10
Interim
application
Filing
of
detailed
leave
2004 CLD 1227

of

should

one

Section-7,23
beyond contract

bank

for
CLD

leave

cannot

be

for
application

be

likely

leave
filed

held

defend-

after

succeed.

&
against

guarantee

to

to

to
expiry

public

not

PLA

of

74.
policy

unable.

rejected.
716

defend.
21-days.

Section-10
Leave to defend - serious & bonafide defence- Bank had to provide guarantee and L/C to enable Co. to
get project from Wapda. Bank failed to provide-Co. on this ground denied liability to pay claim of Bank. It
was
a
serious
&
bonafide
defence.
2004 CLD 1181
Section-10
Any concession made by the liquidators not binding on guarantors who have to independently show that
the
Bank
did
not
have
any
right
against
them.
2004 CLD 1181
Section-10
Suit for rendition of accounts against Bank- leave granted- issued & have to be framed.
2004 CLD 821
Section-10,9(3)
Service
to
2004
1999 SCMR 2353

be

computed
CLD

from

first

service.
1227

Section-12,9(3)
Defect in any one of the process of serving. No reliance could be placed on the process.
2004 CLD 771(a)

Service
2004 CLD 393

by

any

Section-17
Registration
If guarantee is
2004 CLD 1289
Mortgage
2004 CLD 1289

admitted

mode

personal

Deed

guarantee

has

Unregistered
2004 CLD 881

is

need

to

not

good

be

witnesses

be

Mortgage

service.

Act.
registers.

or

properly

attested.

Deed

dismissed.

Proclamation must be within the approval of the Court- otherwise all subsequent proceedings are nullity.
2004 CLD 1616
Section-22
No
review,
2004 CLD 1084
Section-2(b)
There
is
2007 CLD 69(e)

revision

no

or

difference

Writ

maintainable
2007
2007 CLD 1352

with

appeal

between

Banking

against

the

Court
CLD

rejected

words

has

suit

wrongly

of

PLA

and

assumed

case.

jurisdiction.
69(d)

Bank Guarantee letter of credit- Beneficiary of the letter of credit or a bank guarantee not a customer
even if connected with finance in
some way could neither sue nor be sued.
(Proctor
&
Gamble
vs.
Bank
Alfalah)
2007 CLD 1532
Tort suit for recovery of damages for malicious prosecution against bank-plaintiffs only successors not
borrowers-plaint
returned
under
Order-7Rule-10
CPC.
(Manzoor
A.
Piracha vs. HBL)
2007 CLD 571
Cost of funds is from the date of default.
2007 CLD 1639
Banking Ordinance, 2001 does not exclude or override the Partnership Act unless there is specific
provision
to
contrary.
2007 CLD 501
Mark up accruing under the fresh finance agreement was claimed which had accrued during the default
period during which Bank exercised forbearance to sue- Such mark up constituted mark up on mark up.
Saudi
Pak
vs.
Lucky
Textile
2007 CLD 1005(b)
Detection- requirement
2007 C LD 964

of

Section-51

CPC

should

be

fulfilled

in

execution

of

decree.

No
mark
2007
2007 CLD 435 (a)

up

beyond
CLD

contract

period.
1374(b)

Suit without statement of A/C not competent plaint liable to be rejected u/s 9. (UCP 500) Uniform
Customs
of
Letters
of
Credit.
2007 CLD 320(b)
REVIEW
Power of review or revision is a substantive right which cannot be exercised without conferment of such
jurisdiction by the statute itself- such powers can only be exercised by a court, tribunal or authority when
that power is granted by the very statute that created it.
Shah Dewana vs. HBL
PLD 1949 Lahore 301
PLD 1970 Dacca 693
PLD 1966 Lahore 850
Distinguished PLD 1980 Lahore 441
PLD 1970 SC 1 referred.
Powers of Review, if not available to a Court or authority under relevant law, could not be exercised as an
inherent power under law.
Mian Muhammad Aslam Shah Vs. Zahir Shah
2012 CLC 185 (Peshawar) (D.B)
1991
SCMR
1756as
to
review
under
Ordnance,
1979
PLD
1994
Karachi
67
(a)
as
to
remission
under
BTO,
1984.
1998
SCMR
1961
1982
CLC
1625
Lahore.
1987
MLD
186
Karachi.
On
limitation
of
review
application
see
1995
SCMR
69
Article-173
of
Limitation
Act,
90-days.
Attaching
certified
copy
with
the
application
not
necessary,
1989
MLD
1458.
Also
see
Article-162
Section-27
of
Banking
Courts
Act
1997
(Finality
of
Orders)
Section-21
Appeal.
Section-21(5)No
appeal,
review
or
remission
shall
lie
against
any
interlocutory
order
of
the
Banking
Court
other
than
an
order
passed
under
subsection-6
of
Section-18.

Review petition time barred. 90-days limitation.

No application of condonation of delay.
Order-7
Rule-11Declaratory
suit
against
Bank
alleging
that
bank
did
not
disburse
the
amount
as
claimed
by
it,
court
without
granting
appeal
rejected
plaint
for
not
disclosing
cause
of
actionscase
remandedBanking
Court will have to decide PLA and decide about maintainability of the suit.
2005 CLD 1083
Compromise between bank and principal debtor guarantor alleged that the guarantee should discharge
in view of Section-135 of Contract Act- held- guarantor precluded from taking advantage of Section-135 in
view
of
section-128
of
Contract
Act
as
the
liability
is
co-extensive.
2005 CLD 1689

Cause
of
2005 CLD 1705

action

subsisting

not

time

barred.

Section-9 and Negotiable Instrument Act Section-20,118.

Bank
documents
2005 CLD 1237

estopped

from

challenging

legality.

Section-9. Suit for borrowers for declaration, rendition of accounts and permanent injunction Suit by
bank for recovery of loan court through consolidated judgment decreed bank suit and dismissed
borrowers. The suits were never consolidated. Held borrowers suit shall to be decided separately.
2005 CLD 1486
Guarantor
2005
2005 CLD 1680

Personal
Guarantee
2005
ADBP vs. Mehk Food
Doctrine
2005 CLD 569

Guarantee

co-extensive.
72

SCMR

of

Suit
CLD

sub-judice

directly

as

against

in

Section-10

Section-9(4) Pleas for consolidation of suits for damages with

2005 CLD 569

to

wrong

C.P.C.

banking suit not tenable.

Person
2005 SCMR 72 = 2005 CLD 95
Reference
2005 CLD 169

guarantor.
1359

Guarantee.

provision

of

law

in

consequential.

Suit for recovery of damages against bank and the insurance company involved in transaction
application under Order-7 Rule-11 CPC. Held insurance company not covered as Borrower and
indemnifier
in
the
sense.
Banking
Court
had
no
jurisdiction.
2005 CLD 1781
Insurance clause was an independent and separate agreement could not be made basis to restrict bank
to
recover
the
amount.
2005
CLD
643
Naeem Bhatti vs. HBL
Where immovable property was charged limitation under Article-132 (c) was 12-years otherwise it was 3years.
The Punjab Debtors Protection Act, 1935 page 1491.
The offences in respect of Banks(Special Courts) Ordinance, 19 page 839.
The Usurons Loans Act, 1918 page 1381 Money Lenders 1960 at page 296.
Board
2002 CLD 1431 (e)

Resolution

Imperative.

Guarantor/Contract Even where the contract becomes unenforceable against the principal debtor, the
guarantor would still be liable for the surety he had executed unless there was any covenant to the
contrary.
2002 CLD 550 S.C
Bar of unconditional withdrawal of suit. Order-23 Rule-1(1)(3). In Banking there will be a fresh cause of
action
upon
breach
of
settlement
by
defendants.
2003 CLD 1468
Legal
heirs
of
2005 CLD 668 Lah.
Guarantor
2005
ADBP
2005 CLD 1680 Lah.

personal

guarantor

CLD
vs.

not

liable

Principal
1359
Malik

no

coercive measures.

debtor.
Lah.
Food.

Where the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 itself provides the specific
procedure for resolving a proposition, under the settled principles of construction of statues, the
provisions of general law not only to that extent, but even regarding the inherent jurisdiction of the court
available under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 shall not be attracted.
Zarai Tariqiati Bank Limited through Branch Manager
Versus
Hassan Aftab Fatiana
2009 CLD 36
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
Sect. 9 & 10
- The Ordinance 2001 obliges the parties to suit to identically plead/state the same nature of accounts
or the heads of accounts.
- Defending customer is thus obliged to put in a definite response to the Banks accounting and has u/s
9(3) & 10(4) to compulsorily plead in leave petition his accounts as well as facts and amounts disputed by
him as payable to plaintiff according to him.
- This Ord. 2001 has rationale of Schemetic disciplen Banking suit is normally a suit on accounts
which are duly ledgered and maintained compulsorily in the books of accounts under the prescribed
principles/standards of accounting laws, rules & banking practices. Therefore, controversies are to be
confined to the claimed and/or the disputed numbers, facts and reasons thereof.
Apollo Textile V. Soneri Bank
PLD 2012 S.C. 268
-

Provisions of Ss. 9 & 10 are mandatory

Appeal Sect. 22 R/W O.XLI, R 1 & Sect. 96

Provision regarding production of certified copy of the Decree Sheet along with memo of appeal to be
mandatory and the appeal not accompanied by certified copy of the Decree Sheet not to be properly
constituted and thus incompetent.
-

Limitation in Supreme Court Appeal

Where appeal was allowed against the judgment or decree or a final order, filing of appeal within
limitation was mandatory from the delivery of judgment and waiting for the grant of certified copy of the

decree would not enlarge the limitation and in such a case non-filing of the decree would not be fatal to
the appeal.
Apollo Textile V. Soneri Bank
PLD 2012 S.C. 268
S. 19(2)Civil Procedure Code, (V of 1908), O.XXI, R.85Execution decree-Modes ofScope of
Question ofWhether provision of Order XXI, Rule 85, CPC apply to Banking Court in execution
proceedingsDetermination ofThree modes authorizing the Banking Court to execute its decreeFirst
mode empowered a Banking Court to execute a decree by applying the provisions of CPCBanking
Court could execute a decree in manner provided under any other law for time being in force and third
mode provides that at request of decree holder, Banking Court might adopt any procedure for execution
of decree which it deems appropriateIn instant case, executing Court had adopted procedure for
executing decree as provided under CPC, which fact was manifested from proclamation issued, at times
by itIn clause 2 of proclamations that highest bidder would deposit 25% of auction money on conclusion
of auctionRemaining 75% of auction money would be deposited in Court within 15 days from date of
auction failing which executing Court could forfeit the amount of auction money depositedSuch
conditions were borrowed from provisions of Order XXI, Rules 84, 85 and 86, CPCExecuting Court had
chosen to adopt the procedure provided under CPC for executing the decree--Decree holder had ever
approached the Banking Court to execute decree in manner other than one provided under CPCCourt
in its discretion could extend time to appellant for depositing of balance amount of 75% of sale price after
lapse of 15 days by virtue of S. 19(2) of Ordinance did not appeal to reasonExecuting Court could
adopt any procedure for executing decree under banking law but such power of the count had a rider that
it would be subject to written request of decree-holder which request had never been made in the case in
hand.
Mst. Nadia Malik Versus M/S Makki Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd. Through Chief Executive and
others.
PLJ 2012 SC 158
O.XXI, R.90
- Executing decree--Non-deposit of amount--Filing of objections to sale--Auction purchaser must reflect
transparency--Objections raised by private respondents were not only based on quantum of reserved
price but were based on issues which showed that sale/auction proceedings were being conducted in
manner to extend favour of appellant--All provisions of law including provisions of Rule 90, CPC are to be
read with exception--Any law without exception is a bad law--Object of deposit of 20% of amount by a
person objecting to sale under Rule 90 of Order XXI, CPC is meant to ensure that objections were made
by bona fide person and rule is not misused to frustrate the sale however, it could not be applied to
advantage of appellant to have premium over his default.
Mst. Nadia Malik Versus M/S Makki Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd. Through Chief Executive and
others.
PLJ 2012 SC 158