RAHEEL IKHLAS vs Messrs CITIBANK N.A.
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a High Court order upholding the Banking Court's rejection of his application under section 12 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1979. The petitioner, a credit card holder, had suffered an ex parte decree for recovery of money after failing to appear despite service of notice through ordinary course and publication. The petitioner contended he was condemned unheard. The Supreme Court found no merit in the petition, holding that the High Court's order was just, fair, and equitable. The Court clarified that if the petitioner disputed the decretal amount or claimed non-adjustment of certain payments, he could agitate the matter before the Executing Court, as the Supreme Court could not embark upon a factual inquiry in these proceedings. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Whether an ex parte decree passed by a Banking Court can be set aside under section 12 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1979 when the defendant was duly served by notice and publication?
- Can the Supreme Court embark upon an inquiry into disputed questions of fact regarding the adjustment of decretal amounts in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction?
- Section 12, Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1979
ORDER
' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the High Court order, dated 21- 3-2002 upholding the order of the Banking Court, Lahore whereby petitioner's application under section 12 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1979) was rejected.
2. The petitioner being a credit card holder to the limit of Rs,2,45,000 was proceeded against before the Banking Court where an ex parte decree in the sum of Rs,1,73,007 was passed against him on 29-5-2001. The petitioner despite" service of notice in the ordinary course as well as by publication did not appear before the trial Court and instead moved an application under section 12 of Act XV of 1997 on the main premise that he had not been afforded opportunity of hearing and was condemned unheard. Petitioner's plea did not find favour with the learned High Court which has been dismissed through the impugned order, leading to this petition.
3. We have heard learned Advocate-or-Record for the petitioner and gone through the entire record as well as the .Impugned judgment. On the face of record there appears to be no merit in this petition and the order passed by the High Court is just, fair and equitable in the circumstances of the case. In case the petitioner feels that he is not liable to pay the decretal amount or that certain amount credited by him has not been adjusted by the Bank, he may agitate the same before the Executing Court as this Court cannot embark upon an inquiry into facts in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction.
4. Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- Fazal Sons etc. vs Muslim Commercial Bank Limited 2015 LHC 447
- Messrs FAZAL SONS through Sole Proprietor and 3 otherss vs MUSLIM 2015 LHC 447, 2015 CLD 1699
- M/s. Fazal Sons, etc vs Muslim Commercial Bank Limited 2015 C.L.R. 494