BAHAWALPUR COTTON COMPANY vs UNITED BANK LIMITED Void order — 2023 CLD 1116 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

BAHAWALPUR COTTON COMPANY VS UNITED BANK LIMITED Void order---Effect---When basic order is void ab initio, the whole series of subsequent orders, together with the superstructure of rights and obligations built upon them must fall to the ground---Such orders have no foundation as they are based on void order. Ss. 10, 22 & 27---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2) & O. IX, R. 9---Suit for recovery of bank loan---Leave to appear application, pendency of---Absence of defendant---Ex-parte judgment and decree, setting aside of---Jurisdiction of Banking Court---Appellants/defendants were aggrieved of ex-parte judgment and decree passed by Banking Court during pendency of application for leave to appear in suit due to non-prosecution---Validity---Once leave application was filed then Banking Court was under legal duty to consider the same regardless of non-appearance of appellants/defendants and their counsel---Banking Court under S. 10(8) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, was required to read contents of plaint, application for leave to defend the suit, replication and then to determine whether any question of law and fact was raised, which needed recording of evidence---Powers were bestowed upon Banking Court under S. 10(9) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, to grant conditional or unconditional leave to appellants/defendants---Banking Court under S. 10(11) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, was empowered to reject leave application if it had not fulfilled conditions for grant of leave and thereafter could decreed the suit forthwith---Banking Court was required to consider and decide leave application on merits and there was no other choice left with Banking Court and could not dismiss leave application for non-prosecution---No such power was conferred upon Banking Court under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---Proceeding otherwise than the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, would defeat the intent of legislature---Dismissal of leave application due to non-prosecution was without jurisdiction and patently illegal---Inherent jurisdiction of Banking Court was not ousted by S. 27 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---There was no specific provision available in Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, debarring application under O. IX, R. 9, C.P.C. or application under S. 12(2), C.P.C.---High Court set aside ex-parte judgment and decree passed against appellants/defendants and remanded the matter to Banking Court for decision on merits---Appeal was allowed accordingly. Practice and procedure---Question of law---Scope---Pure question of law can be raised at any stage of proceedings.

BAHAWALPUR COTTON COMPANY vs UNITED BANK LIMITED Void order — 2023 CLD 1116 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 CLD