Lahore High Court

Syed Zahid Hussain and Syed Asghar Haider, JJ

Messrs World Clothing Company Through Managing Partner And 2 Others:;
VS
Habib Bank Limited Through General Attorneys/Manager
R.F.A. No,268 and C.M. No,1-C of 2006
25/09/2006
Reported As [2006 C L D 1590]
Result: Appeal dismissed

Practice Area: Banking and Insurance , Criminal Law , Income Tax, Sales Tax, Customs and Finance
Law
Tagged Statutes: Limitation Act, 1908 [] , Limitation Act, 1908 [Article 5] , Limitation Act, 1908 [Section
5] , Financial Institution (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 [Section 22]

Show Case Summary

ORDER
' Judgment and decree passed by the learned Banking Court, Faisalabad on 9-3-2006 is sought to be
assailed through this appeal under section 22 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances)
Ordinance, 2001. The appeal is accompanied by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1908 (C.M. No,1-C of 2006). Notice was issued in this application. On 4-9-2006 when the application
came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent urged for the dismissal of the appeal,
being barred by time.
' The learned counsel have been heard.
We have perused the relevant endorsements by the official of the copying agency wherefrom the
particulars about the preparation of the copy and its delivery are ascertainable. It shows that the copy
was applied for on 11-3-2006, which was prepared on 21-3-2006. Against the column of date of
delivery the date 21-3-2006 was mentioned, which was then scored out and overwritten as 9-5-2006.
It made the date of delivery as doubtful. The learned counsel was asked to show us the slip/chit issued
by the copying agency, which ordinarily bears the expected date of delivery of the copy applied for.
But nothing has been produced or shown to us. The bare assertion made in the application, which is
not even supported by the affidavit of the counsel who applied or received the copy, cannot be
considered as sufficient and the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent who vehemently
disputes the correctness of the version put forth in the application, cannot be brushed aside. In such
view of the matter, the appeal which was filed on 20-5-2006 was prima facie barred by time and the
delay in filing of the said appeal having not been satisfactorily explained, we are constrained to observe
that no ground has been made out for condoning the delay.
' As a result the application is dismissed, as a consequence whereof the appeal is dismissed as barred
by time.