It is conjusted and polluted place n insecure

SECTION 7(2)Procedure of O-37 CPC having been made applicable it is only an enabling provision for procedure – does not mean suit falls under O-37 in substance, never ART. 64-A  of Limitation (3-years) not applicable rather Art-132 (12-years) applicable.KLR 1993 civil cases 169 (Lah).SECTION 7(2)Procedure of O-37 CPC having been made applicable it is only an enabling provision for procedure – does not mean suit falls under O-37 in substance, never ART. 64-A  of Limitation (3-years) not applicable rather Art-132 (12-years) applicable.KLR 1993 civil cases 169 (Lah).SECTION 7(2)Procedure – contention that special court should have followed procedure of O-34 CPC in suit based on mortgage repelled.1983 CLC 2828 Lah. H.N(a).SECTION 7(2)There are suits based on mortgage and there are suits based on statements of accounts.1992 CLC 1906 Pesh. H.N.(b).SECTION 7(2)In conditional leave to defend the security would include the security already furnished against loan.1992 CLC 1964 Kar. (DB).SECTION 7(2)High Court acting as Special Court should have given adjustment of the value of the mortgaged property while fixing the security for granting leave to defend in suit.1991 SCMR 33.CONTRARY – Grant of leave to appear and defend suit – question of – bank loan adequately secured by mortgage of immovable property – held, it was quality of defence and not extent of security which should be governing factor.1985 CLC 2467 Lah. (DB)CONTRARY – Even in a mortgage suit where loan is fully secured, leave cannot be granted as a matter of right but has to make out a case for grant of leave. General principle for granting leave enunciated.1986 CLC 1086 Kar.SECTION 7(2), CPC O-37 R-2.Leave to defend granted to the defendant without imposing any condition as the loan fully secured under a registered mortgage more in value then claim in suit.PLD 1984 Kar. 27NLR 1989 A.C. 101.1984 SCMR 6341991 MLD 2599.SECTION 7(2); CPC O-37 R-1,2,3.Fact that there existed valid mortgage which had not shown to be sufficient to satisfy claim, necessitated grant of leave to defendants/guarantors on furnishing surety of specifies amount.1991 MLD 2599In case of sufficient security – unconditional leave.1991 MLD Kar. 2601SECTION 8Special court required to pass preliminary decree in suit founded on mortgage – failed to pass preliminary decree – in impugned judgment it said exparte decree was final decree – defendants deprived of opportunity to pay into couirt – decree to be set aside valid decree a condition precedent of auction proceedings.P.1993 Lah. 706 HN (i) (DB).SECTION 8(2) INTEREST – VALIDITYProvisions of Ord. 1979 are protected inspite of Art.2-A & 270-A of Constitution – Interest though unIslamic could be granted.1992 CLC 1906 Pesh. H.N (d)PLD 1987 Kar. 296PLD 1987 Kar. 612.SECTION 8(2) INTERESTProperty sought to be auctioned is for recovery of interest – Question of interest/compound interest pending before Supreme Court – auction could not be done.NLR 1994 CLJ 300.SECTION 8(3) Execution.Contravention of provisions of O-21 R-66 – sale would be rendered nullity.PLD 1993 Lah. 706 HN (m).SECTION 8(3) Execution.According to O-21 R-67 read with R-54(2) CPC proclamation had to be made by beat of drum, copy affixed on property and court house – U/O 21 R-68 there should be an interval of 30 days between sale and the proclamation. Rule 69 lays where sale through auction was adjourned for more than 7-days, fresh proclamation should be issued unless waived by judgment debtor.PLD 1993 Lah. 706 HN (m).SECTION 8(3) Execution.Non publication of sale proclamation by beat of drum, had caused serious injury to aggrieved persons – omission along with other illegalities – no substantial compliance – proclamation under O-21 R-66 appears to be mandatory.PLD 1993 Lah. 706 HN (m).SECTION 8(3) ExecutionAs to mode and purpose of fixing reserve price for auction.PLD 1993 Lah. 706 HN (n).

When consumers to much overconfident

Good

Banking case