2 Replication

 

IN THE BANKING COURT LAHORE  

 

In Re:

SILK BANK LIMITED

Vs  SAJID NAWAS KHOKHAR 

REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF BANK TO APPLICATION FOR FOR LEAVE TO DEFEND  

Respectfully Sheweth: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

1.

Th That at tthe he aapp ppli lica cant nts/ s/de defe fend ndan ants ts h hav avee ad admi mitt tted ed tthe he lloa oan n he henc ncee th thee ap appl plic icat atio ion n merits rejection on this score alone.

2.

Th That at tthe he aapp ppli lica cant nts/ s/ d def efen enda dant ntss ha have ve n not ot d den enie ied d th thee ex exec ecut utio ion n of d doc ocum umen ents ts the application deserves rejection.

3.

That

the

applicants/defendants

have

not

fulfilled

the

mandatory

requirements of section 10 (3) (4) (5) of the Financial Institution (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 hence the application is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. 4.

Th That at tthe he ap appl plic ican ants ts/d /def efen enda dant ntss hav havee fai faile led d to di disc sclo lose se an any y pl plau ausi sibl blee def defen ence ce he henc ncee th thee appl applic icat atio ion n is no nott ma main inta tain inab able le an and d is liab liable le to re reje ject ctio ion n straightaway.

5.

That hat the the appl applic icaants nts/d /deefe fend ndaant ntss ar aree gui uillty of con onccea ealm lmen entt of tr true ue an and d material facts from this hon’ble Court, hence the present application merits rejection.

6.

Th That at tthe he aapp ppli lica cant nts/ s/de defe fend ndan ants ts h hav avee no nott ap appr proa oach ched ed the the C Cou ourt rt w wit ith h cl clea ean n hands, therefore, the present application is liable to be dismissed.

 

7.

Th That at th thee ap appl plic ican ants ts/d /def efen enda dant ntss ar aree usi using ng il ille lega gall ta tact ctic icss to ca caus usee the P Pla lain inti tiff  ff  Bank a huge monetary loss by creating the unreal circumstances for their  ulterior motive hence the present application deserves rejection. REPLY TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OBJECTIONS S 1.

Incorrect hence denied.

2.

Denied b beeing iin ncorrect.

REPLY REPL Y TO TOSU SUBS BSTA TANT NTIA IAL L QU QUES ESTI TION ONS S OF OFLA LAW W AS ASWE WELL LLAS AS FACTS

All th All thee qu ques esti tion onss of fact fact fr from om (1) (1) to (1 (13) 3) ar aree ba base sed d on co cont nten ents ts of  Application alone and even otherwise are incorrect hence not sustainable.

ON MERITS

1.

De Deni nied ed be bein ing g iinc ncor orre rect ct C Con onte tent ntss o off P Par araa I of of the the p pla lain intt aare re re reit iter erat ated ed..

2.

De Deni nied ed be bein ing g iinc ncor orre rect ct Co Cont nten ents ts of Pa Para ra 2& I o off the the pl plai aint nt ar aree reiterated.

3.

Co Cont nten ents ts of Pa Para ra 3 o off tthe he plai plaint nt ar aree re re-i -ite tera ratted ed..

4.

Th Thee aave verm rmen ents ts ma made de in th thee p pre rese sent nt Pa Para ra ar aree sel selff-in inve vent nted ed he henc ncee vehemently denied. The contents of Para 4 of the plaint are re-iterated.

5.

In Inco corr rrec ectt he henc ncee de deni nied ed C Con onte tent ntss of P Par araa 5 o off th thee pl plai aint nt aare re rree-it iter erat ated ed..

6.

In Inco corr rrec ectt he henc ncee de deni nied ed C Con onte tent ntss of P Par araa 6 o off th thee pl plai aint nt aare re rree-it iter erat ated ed..

7.

In Inco corr rrec ectt he henc ncee de deni nied ed C Con onte tent ntss of P Par araa 7 o off th thee pl plai aint nt aare re rree-it iter erat ated ed..

8.

In Inco corr rrec ectt he henc ncee de deni nied ed C Con onte tent ntss of P Par araa 8 o off th thee pl plai aint nt aare re rree-it iter erat ated ed..

9. 10.

In Inco corr rrec ectt he henc ncee de deni nied ed C Con onte tent ntss of P Par araa 9 o off th thee pl plai aint nt aare re rree-it iter erat ated ed.. Inc Incorr orrect ect hen hence ce d deni enied ed Co Conte ntent ntss of P Para ara 10 of the pla plaint int are re-ite re-iterat rated. ed.

11.

Inc Incorr orrect ect hen hence ce d deni enied ed Co Conte ntent ntss of P Para ara 11 of the pla plaint int are re-ite re-iterat rated. ed.

12.

Inc Incorr orrect ect hen hence ce d deni enied ed Co Conte ntent ntss of P Para ara 12 of the pla plaint int are re-ite re-iterat rated. ed.

13.

Inc Incorr orrect ect hen hence ce d deni enied ed Co Conte ntent ntss of P Para ara 13of 13of th thee pl plain aintt are are rere-ite iterat rated. ed.

14.

NO COMENTS.

 

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this hon’ble Court may very graciously dismiss the present application

PLAINTIFF BANK/RESPONDANT through

 Zahid Aslam Khan Attorney at law

 

Muhammad Kamran Siddique Advocate High Court

Zahid Law Associates 2nd Floor Nawa-I-Waqt Building Shahra-e- Fatima Jinnah Lahore

 

IN THE BANKING COURT LAHORE  

 

In Re:

SILK BANK LIMITED

Vs  SAJID NAWAS KHOKHAR 

(REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF BANK TO APPLICATION FOR  LEAVE TO DEFEND)

Affidav Affi davits its of  Mr Mr.. Hab Habibib-urur-Reh Rehman man son of Abd Abdul ul Reh Rehman man and Mr. Mub Mubari arik  k 

Hussain Khan son of Zahid Hussain Khan who are fully conversant with the facts of the case and have full powers and authority working at Silk  Bank Ltd 52 L Gulberg III Lahore. 

I, the above named deponents do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

That the contents of accompanying reply of the plaintiff bank to application for leave to defend are true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed there from.

DEPONENTS VERIFICATION:

Verified on oath at Lahore this ______ day of _______2010 that the contents of above said affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENTS