ASKARI BANK LTD. vs A.H — 2026 CLC 156 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.

ASKARI BANK LTD. VS A.H. INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. Preamble---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.51, 141, 151 & O.XXIX, Rr.1 & 2---National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance (VIII of 2000), S.18---Execution proceedings---Order blocking CNIC of a judgment debtor in satisfaction of a decree, recalling of---Blocking of CNIC in such circumstances---Permissibility---Decree holder providing wrong address of the judgment debtor---Effect---Brief facts of the matter were that the Bank sought execution of a consent decree arising from a settlement agreement under which two sets of agreed amounts were to be satisfied through acquisition and sale of specified properties---The first portion of Rs.426,171,375/- was satisfied through acquisition of four properties, whereas the second portion of approximately Rs.120 million remained partly unsatisfied due to other executions and pending proceedings regarding one property---During execution, the Court issued a direction for blocking the CNICs of judgment debtors Nos.3 and 4---Judgment debtor No.4 later filed applications seeking recalling of that order---Held: A clear discrepancy appeared in the address of the judgment debtor and such position clearly supported his contention that due to his wrong address in the execution application he was never served in the present proceedings and therefore he did not have any knowledge about the instant execution application---The maxim 'Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria suapropria' provided that, 'no one can benefit from their own wrong'---Such address was provided by the decree holder, for which the judgment debtor No.4 should not be punished---Attending to the next aspect of the matter and in order to justify the blocking of CNIC of judgement debtors, decree holder relied upon O. XXI, R. 77 of the Civil Procedure Code [C.P.C.] [KPK Amendment], which provided for blocking of National Identity Card of judgment debtors---It was to be noted after the 18th Constitutional Amendment, C.P.C. had become a Provincial subject, whereas no such provision was available in the C.P.C. as enforceable in the Province of Sindh---Hence, reliance on such a provision, which was neither available nor enforceable in the present jurisdiction, was completely misplaced---Secondly, it was also to be noted that for execution of adecree under the banking jurisdiction, a complete mechanism was provided under the C.P.C., being the general law and under the Financial Institutions Ordinance 2001 [Ordinance 2001] being special law applicable to the present case, which provisions and mechanisms were required to be followed strictly in letter and spirit---Conspicuously, none of these two laws, as applicable in the Province of Sindh, contained any specific provision for blocking of CNIC of a judgment debtor in satisfaction of a decree---Further decree holder sought to rely on S.51 of C.P.C. seeking arrest and detention of the judgment debtor---Before issuance of a warrant under S.51 of C.P.C. certain mandatory pre-requisites had to be fulfilled---In the present case, neither any of pre-conditions was pleaded, nor was issuance of warrant ordered---Reliance on S.51, C.P.C. was therefore, completely misplaced---Lastly, an objection was raised that under O. XXI, R. 23A the judgement debtor No.4 was first required to deposit the decretal amount before his objections could be heard---In this regard, the decree holder was first required to correct the address of judgment debtor No.4 on the title of the present execution application; and thereafter was also required to bring on record the exact outstanding amount which was to be recovered in final satisfaction of the decree, after deduction of the amounts received in partial satisfaction of Rs.120 million---After completion of such activity if the judgment debtor No.4 chose to file objections to this execution, that would be appropriate time when such an objection would be considered---Although the order impugned was passed under S.18 of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 yet even under such Ordinance, Courts had repeatedly discouraged blocking of CNICs---Order impugned was recalled and consequently, National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) was directed to immediately unblock the CNIC of the judgement debtors---Both applications were allowed, in circumstances.

ASKARI BANK LTD. vs A.H — 2026 CLC 156 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLC