Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: PLJ 2004 AJK 93 Present SARDAR MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN J MUHAMMAD HANIF KHAN and 6 others - Petitioners versus GOVERNMET OF AJK through its chief secretary Muzaffarabad and 15 others - Respondents WP No 3 of 2003 decided on 1962004 (i) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act 1974 (V of 1974) - S 44WRIT OCF ERTIORARI - - MAINTAINABILITYESSENTIALSWRIT OF CERCTOIMORPAERTIE NIST ONLY WHETNH E SAME HAS BEEN BROUGHT BY ANY AGGRIEVED PARTY - - AGGRIEVED PARTY MUST BE THPAATR TY AGAINST WHOM DECISION HAS BEEPNR ONOUNCED WHICH HAS WRONGLY DEPRIVED HOIFM S OMETHING OR WRONGFULLY REFUSED HIM SOMETHING OR WRONGFULLY AFFECTED HIS TITLE TO SOMETHING - PETITIONERRISG HCTL AOIMF EEDA SEMENT OVER THE LAND ALLOTfTaEvDou rI N OF respondents but such plea was not taken into consideration and they - were condemned un - heard therefore they could not be excluded from category of aggrieved party - Petitioner writ of certiorari was thus maintainable [Pp 96 97 98] A B C D (ii) Limitation Act 1908 (IX of 1908) - - - Art 5 - - West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967) - - S 162 - - Provision of S 5 Limitation Act 1908 - Applicability to appeal etc filed under S 162 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 - - S 5 of Limitation Act 1908 in fully applicable to appeals etc under Section 162 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 [P 100] E (iii) Limitation Act 1908 (IX of 1908) - - S5 - - Azad Jammu and Kashmir interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1975) S 44 - Condonation of delay in filing time barred appeals before Revenue hierarchy Petitioners request for condonation of delay having gone un - controverted there appears no reason not to accept date of knowledge stressed by petitioners - Revenue hierarchy having side tracked such aspect of the case their orders of specified dates were set aide and case was remanded to Revenue Commissioner to decide petitioners appeal on merits in accordance with law [P 101] F 1995 SCR 355 2001 SCR 530 1999 SCR - 1 1993 SCR 37 PLD 2004 AKJ 1 PLD 1978 Rev 41 PLD 1978 Rev 28 and PLJ 2001 SC (AJK) 368 ref Sardar Muhammad Sadiq Khan Advocate for Petitioners Mr Sardar Khan Advocate for RespondentsJudgement Result:Petition accepted.

Summary: (a) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997) – S.9 Recovery suit—Liability of guarantor—Renewal of financial facilities—Continuing guarantee—Absence of nexus between original and renewed agreements—Effect. Plaintiff bank sanctioned financial facilities to defendant No.1, secured by guarantees executed by defendant Nos.2, 3, and 4. The dispute concerned the liability of defendant No.4, who had executed a guarantee dated 30-3-1993. The plaintiff contended that the guarantee remained valid under the renewed financial facilities sanctioned on 8-7-1997. However, the guarantee dated 30-3-1993 was executed in consideration of an agreement of the same date, which was neither pleaded nor produced as evidence. Although the sanction letter dated 8-7-1997 required personal guarantees of all directors, no fresh guarantee was obtained from defendant No.4. Held, that a contract of guarantee must be based on consideration, and the absence of proof establishing a link between the renewed financial arrangement and the original guarantee absolved defendant No.4 from liability. The plaintiff failed to prove that the claim arose from the original guaranteed facilities, and defendant No.4 was not bound under the renewed arrangements. Suit against defendant No.4 dismissed. (b) Contract Act (IX of 1872) – Ss.127 & 133: Guarantee—Consideration—Continuing nature of guarantee—Extent of liability. A contract of guarantee must be supported by consideration for the benefit of the principal debtor. The plaintiff failed to establish that the financial arrangement of 9-7-1997 was connected to the guarantee executed on 30-3-1993. The court observed that while a guarantee may be continuing, its enforceability is contingent upon the subsistence of the underlying obligation for which it was given. Since the plaintiff neither pleaded nor proved the terms of the agreement dated 30-3-1993, the guarantee in favor of defendant No.4 could not be enforced in isolation. Any material alteration in the financial arrangement without the consent of the guarantor would discharge the guarantor from liability under S.133 of the Contract Act, 1872. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) – O.VI, R.4: Pleading specific facts—Failure to establish nexus between claims and underlying agreements—Effect. The plaintiff bank failed to plead or produce evidence establishing a connection between the agreement of 30-3-1993 and the claim in the suit. The legal notice dated 20-12-2000 sought recovery of Rs.214,752,081.29 from defendant No.4, but the amount was not reflected in any guarantee executed by him. Held, that the failure to properly plead material facts and produce supporting documents rendered the claim unenforceable. Mere acknowledgment of a guarantee does not suffice to establish liability unless it is proved that the guaranteed obligation remains valid and enforceable under the renewed arrangement. (d) Disposition: Suit against defendant No.4 dismissed with costs. ----Cited Cases: Muhammad Mushtaq v. Bashir Ahmad Chaudhry PLD 1991 Lah. 400 Messrs Ruby Trading Company v. Mst. Zainab Khanum 1984 CLC 169 Samar Gul v. Central Government PLD 1986 SC 35 United Bank Limited v. Haji Bawa Company Ltd. 1981 CLC 89 Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited v. Zia-ul-Qamar Bhatti 1989 MLD 366 Emirates Bank International Limited v. Messrs Fair Commission Agency (Pvt.) Limited 1991 CLC 450 National Commercial Bank Ltd. Karachi v. Mohammad Tufail PLD 1975 Kar. 671

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.