MUHAMMAD SHEHZAD vs FAISAL BANK LIMITED Ss — 2024 CLD 141 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

MUHAMMAD SHEHZAD VS FAISAL BANK LIMITED Ss. 9, 22 & 27---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)---Recovery suit---Misrepresentation or fraud asserted before the Banking Court by customer (defendant)---Scope---Validity---Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. did not mention any particulars arguably constituting fraud or misrepresentation which may have been played upon the Banking Court in obtaining judgment and decree from the Banking Court---In absence of any convincing evidence, no misrepresentation or fraud could be alleged to have been contrived by Respondent/Bank to obtain a decision in its favour, which came into being mainly due to the failure of the appellant/customer to put up an appearance before the Banking Court in pursuance of the notices and summons issued to him---Appeal filed by the customer was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 CLD 141 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH MUHAMMAD SHEHZAD VS FAISAL BANK LIMITED Ss. 9, 22 & 27---Recovery suit---Conduct of the appellant---Scope---Conduct of the appellant-customer also did not inspire confidence as no valid grounds had been made out to disturb the orders of the Banking Court---No valid grounds had been made out to hear a time-barred appeal---In the present case, the grounds of appeal remained unsubstantiated, general, vague and bald accusations not supported with any cogent prima facie evidence or material, which might require the issuance of notice to the decree-holder/respondent/ Bank or summoning entire record or admit present appeal in whole or in part---Retaining the present appeal on the docket of the Court would only burden the Court, postpone the inevitable writing on the wall and bring misery for the contesting parties, at least for the decree-holder who was prosecuting execution proceedings against the appellant/customer---No illegality or material irregularity was noticed in the impugned judgments, orders and decrees passed by the Banking Court---Appeal filed by the customer was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 CLD 141 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH MUHAMMAD SHEHZAD VS FAISAL BANK LIMITED Ss. 9, 22 & 27---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)---Recovery suit---Execution proceedings---Fraud or misrepresentation alleged by the customer/judgment-debtor---Scope---Appellant/customer (defendant/judgment-debtor), during execution proceedings, filed an application under S. 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ('C.P.C.') in the Banking Court alleging that fraud had been played on the Court---Validity---Record revealed that after about four (4) years of the passing of the judgment and decree by the Banking Court, the appellant (customer/judgment-debtor) filed an Application under S. 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Under S. 12(2), C.P.C. fraud must be shown by the applicant to have been played upon the Court during the proceedings of the lis---Respondent/Bank sending notices to the last known address of the appellant-customer did not constitute fraud under S. 12(2), C.P.C.---Appeal filed by the customer was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 CLD 141 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH MUHAMMAD SHEHZAD VS FAISAL BANK LIMITED Ss. 9, 22 & 27---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)---Recovery suit---Fraud or misrepresentation asserted before the Banking Court---Appellant-customer filed an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. to set aside the judgment and decree--- Contention of the appellant/customer was that a fraud had been played on the Banking Court by not mentioning his correct up-to-date address in the title of the plaint, consequently, no valid service was effected on him---Validity---Service might be effected under S. 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 ('FIO 2001'), by any one of the modes mentioned therein---Record revealed that in the present case service was effected through all modes on the appellant/customer, and he was bound to file his leave to defend application within 30 days from service of summons---Section 9 of the FIO, 2001 stipulated that any one of the modes was a valid service provided such service was effected in the manner prescribed by the Appendix to the Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Appellant/customer did not argue/challenge that service was not affected as provided for in S. 9(5) of the FIO, 2001, in the manner prescribed by the Appendix to the C.P.C., but merely claimed that he did not receive a copy of the summons as the address mentioned in the title of the plaint was incorrect---Appellant/customer did not file leave to defend application and consequently, the Banking Court passed the judgment and decree---Appellant/customer did not prefer any appeal against the said judgment and decree under S. 22 of the FIO, 2001---Appeal filed by the customer was dismissed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD SHEHZAD vs FAISAL BANK LIMITED Ss — 2024 CLD 141 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLD