| Case ID |
d59f6d1a-e24b-4ce5-81fc-d23d0945fecc |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
High Court Appeal No. 404 of 2016 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 12, 2018 |
| Hearing Date |
Aug 07, 2018 |
| Decision |
The appeal was allowed, and the order dated 10-11-2016 passed in Suit No.67/2014 was set aside. The court remanded the matter with directions for the learned Single Judge to decide afresh the application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. The judges emphasized the importance of properly applying the law regarding the rejection of plaints and the implications of mis-joinder of parties. The court noted that the parameters for deciding such applications were not adequately considered in the impugned order, and the learned Single Judge had effectively prejudged the entire suit without proper legal basis. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around a legal dispute involving the Muslim Commercial Bank Limited and several respondents concerning the rejection of a plaint and the jurisdiction of the Banking Mohtasib. The Sindh High Court reviewed the appeals and highlighted the necessity for due process in legal proceedings. The decision underscored the need for clarity in the application of the Civil Procedure Code, particularly regarding the rejection of plaints and the mis-joinder of parties. The case also touches upon the Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act and its implications on the court's jurisdiction. The court's ruling aimed to ensure that the merits of the case are properly adjudicated without prejudice, thereby reinforcing the principles of justice and fair legal representation. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
State Bank of Pakistan,
Banking Mohtasib,
MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR,
ADNAN IQBAL CHAUDHRY
|
| Lawyers |
Khalid Mehmood Siddiqui,
Noman Jamali
|
| Petitioners |
MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED THROUGH DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY
|
| Respondents |
SAJIDA NAQI RIAZ,
Nemo Nos.3 to 6,
Nemo Nos. 8 and 9
|
| Citations |
2019 SLD 1719,
2019 CLC 1371
|
| Other Citations |
Haji Abdul Karim v. Florida Builders PLD 2012 SC 247,
Corporation of Calcutta v. Radha Krishana Devi AIR (39) 1952 Cal. 222,
Manohar Lal v. Roshan Lal AIR 1938 Lah. 799
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013,
Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962
|
| Sections |
O.I,VII,R.2(2),
10(2),
11,
18,
82,
82-E(1)(3)(7)
|