PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

IRFANULLAH vs STANDARD CHARTERED BANK OF PAKISTAN Ss — 2021 CLD 1345 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Citation
2021 CLD 1345 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Court
Peshawar High Court
Year
2021
Reporter
CLD
Parties
IRFANULLAH vs STANDARD CHARTERED BANK OF PAKISTAN Ss
Subject matter
Civil
Provisions referred to
S. 4---L; S. 9; S. 4; Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891); Limitation Act (IX of 1908); Books Evidence Act; Limitation Act

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

IRFANULLAH VS STANDARD CHARTERED BANK OF PAKISTAN Ss. 9 & 22---Bankers' Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S. 4---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 132--- Suit for recovery of finances---Limitation---House building loan---Mortgage property---Manager of Financial Institution, personal capacity of---Computer generated statement of accounts---Appellant/borrower was aggrieved of judgment and decree passed by Banking Court in favour of respondent/Bank---Validity---Recovery suit could be filed under S. 9 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 against a borrower by Manager in his personal capacity as well and the same could not necessarily be accompanied by any power of attorney executed in his favour by Bank---Statement of accounts was system generated document and it was not to bear signature of attorneys of Bank---Such was a clear practice when such statements of accounts were prepared manually---Statement of accounts annexed with plaint was certified within the meaning of S. 4 of Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891, and was an authentic and valid document---Home loan was advanced to appellant/borrower and was secured through a memorandum of deposit of title deeds---For enforcing a suit of equitable mortgage, the time of limitation was 12 years from the time when a money sued for became due---Such was Art. 132 of Limitation Act, 1908 and recovery suit was filed well within time---High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Banking Court, as there was no illegality, misreading or non-reading of record and evidence---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2021 CLD

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English