BANKERS EQUITY (LTD.) and others vs Messrs BENTONITE PAKISTAN LTD. and others
This matter originated from a petition challenging the rejection of a plaint in a recovery suit filed by the petitioners. The core legal question concerned whether the rejection of the plaint, based on the failure to comply with Sections 9(1) and (2) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, was appropriate, particularly given the argument that the omission was a rectifiable mistake and that the underlying loan, dating back to 1987, should have been governed by the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 rather than the 2001 Ordinance. The Supreme Court, noting the concession made by the respondent’s counsel that the omission was indeed rectifiable and that there was no objection to the relief sought, allowed the petition. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and restored the civil suit. The principle established is that procedural omissions in a plaint, particularly those involving statutory compliance in recovery suits, may be treated as rectifiable defects rather than grounds for outright rejection, provided the opposing party consents to the amendment.
- Can a plaint rejected for non-compliance with statutory requirements be restored if the omission is rectifiable?
- Does the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 apply to loans originating in 1987?
- Is a court permitted to allow an amendment to a plaint after it has been rejected, provided the opposing party consents?
- Section 9(1), Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
- Section 9(2), Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
- Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997
ORDER
' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the suit for recovery filed by the petitioners' plaint was rejected solely on the ground that petitioner/plaintiffs had failed to comply with sections 9(1) and (2) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances)
Ordinance, 2001 although it was a rectifiable mistake and even otherwise since the loan was relatable to the year 1987, the matter should have been dealt with under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 and not under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent No,4 who was on watching brief in all fairness submitted that it was a rectifiable mistake/omission and if the petitioners amend the plaint within a period of 15 days, respondent has no Objection if this petition is converted into appeal and allowed.
3. In view of the fair stand taken by respondent's learned counsel, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. Civil Original Suit No,44 of 2000 shall be deemed to be pending and the appellants shall file amended suit A within 15 days.