ABDUL RAZZAQ vs A.D.B.P.
This civil appeal before the Lahore High Court arose from the dismissal of an application for leave to appear and defend a recovery suit filed by the respondent-Bank. The core legal question was whether the appellant had raised a substantial defence regarding the issuance of the disputed cheque, warranting the grant of leave to defend. The Court held that the appellant's contention that he did not issue the cheque for Rs. 1,80,000, combined with the Bank's failure to appear and controvert the statement or produce the cheque, established a substantial defence. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Banking Court, granted the application for leave to appear and defend, and remanded the matter for a regular trial. The key principle laid down is that where a defendant raises a plausible and uncontroverted plea regarding the core transaction in a banking suit, leave to defend ought not to be refused.
- Whether the dismissal of an application for leave to appear and defend is justified when the defendant raises a substantial defence regarding the issuance of the disputed cheque?
- Can an appellate court set aside a banking court judgment and decree when the respondent-Bank fails to appear and controvert the appellant's assertions?
- What is the appropriate course of action when a defendant shows a substantial defence in a recovery suit filed by a banking institution?
ORDER
' The process-server has reported that the respondent-Bank has been served. None has appeared for the Bank. It is, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.
2. It is contended on behalf of the appellant Abdul Razzaq that he did not issue any cheque for drawing the amount of Rs,1,80,000 claimed by the respondent-Bank in its suit. None has appeared for the Bank to controvert this statement or to produce in Court the cheque which may A have been issued by Abdul Razzaq appellant.
3. In the above circumstances, we find that the application submitted by Abdul Razzaq before the learned Banking Court seeking leave to appear and defend was dismissed without justification and even though the appellant had shown a substantial defence as noted above. In this view of the matter, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 19-10-2001. We also allow the application filed by Abdul Razzaq appellant seeking leave to appear and defend. The case is remanded to the learned Banking Court No,II, Gujranwala to be proceeded with and decided as a regular long cause.
Cited by 7 cases
- Silk Bank Limited, Karachi vs M/S. Dewan Sugar Mills Limited, Karachi 2011 P.C.T.L.R. 1268
- SILKBANK LIMITED vs Messrs DEWAN SUGAR MILLS LIMITED 2011 CLD 436
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs WALI BHAI INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. and 3 2011 CLD 161
- Mrs. YUBA JAMIL ANSARI vs BANK AL-FALAH LIMITED and anothers 2009 CLD 1177
- KASB BANK LIMITED vs Messrs TRANS LIVIA PRIVATE LIMITED and 4 others 2007 PLD Karachi 508
- KASB BANK LIMITED Versus Messrs TRANS LIMA PRIVATE LIMITED 2007 CLD 1407
- KASB Bank Limited, Karachi vs M/S. Trans Livia Private Limited, Karachi And 2008 P.C.T.L.R. 770