ALAM ALI SYED vs UNITED BANK LTD., LAHORE and another
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court dismissing an appeal filed under the Banking Tribunal Ordinance, 1984. The respondent bank had obtained a decree against the petitioner for the recovery of a loan. The petitioner subsequently filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree, alleging lack of service. This application was dismissed in default due to the petitioner's non-appearance on the date of hearing. A subsequent application for restoration of the initial application was also rejected by the Banking Tribunal. The High Court affirmed this dismissal, noting that the original application to set aside the ex parte decree was time-barred and that no sufficient cause was shown for the restoration of the application. The Supreme Court examined the proceedings and found no legal infirmity in the High Court's decision. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for restoration or to overcome the limitation issue, and thus refused to grant leave to appeal, upholding the lower court's dismissal.
- Can an application for restoration of an application to set aside an ex parte decree be granted if the original application was filed beyond the period of limitation?
- Is an appellate court justified in dismissing an appeal against the refusal to restore an application where no sufficient cause for non-appearance is established?
- Section 9, Banking Tribunal Ordinance 1984
ORDER
' SALEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the learned Judges of the High Court whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the Banking Tribunal Ordinance, 1984 was dismissed.
2. The respondent (United Bank Ltd.) filed a suit for recovery of loan advanced to the petitioner, which was decreed ex parte on 17-3-1992. An application for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed on 22-6-1992 pleading inter alia that the petitioner was not served and as such the ex parte decree was null and void. The respondent-Bank contested it and pleaded that the decree was passed in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner and was not an ex parte decree.
On 14-2-1993 when the application was fixed for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the same was dismissed in default. The petitioner filed an application for restoration of the application for setting aside the decree, which was rejected by the learned Tribunal. The petitioner filed appeal before the High Court, which was also dismissed by the impugned order.
3. The learned counsel contended that there was sufficient ground for restoring the application for setting aside the ex parte decree and therefore the order is liable to be set aside. The learned Judges of the High Court taking note of the entire proceedings that the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed beyond period of limitation and further the application for restoration of the said application was also dismissed and there being no sufficient cause for setting aside the order, dismissed the appeal. There is hardly any ground on which the impugned order can be attacked. We refuse to grant leave.
Cited by 2 cases
- Qaiser vs Iffat Abbasi 2024 IHC 162
- AKRAM RASHID vs HAMID ALI KHAN 2015 C.L.R.1288, 2015 PLJ Islamabad 226, 2015 CLC 1290