livelawpk.com - Executing Court must issue time for deposit of amount

The Supreme Court of Pakistan interpreted second proviso to Rule 90 of Order XXI, CPC --- It is mandatory for Executing Court to issue direction for deposit of amount and its timing in execution proceedings.

7 months, 1 week
299

The Supreme Court of Pakistan interpreted second proviso to Rule 90 of Order XXI, CPC --- It is mandatory for Executing Court to issue direction for deposit of amount and its timing in execution proceedings.

Islamabad 10-05-2024: The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in a larger bench consisting of Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Mr. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, and Mr. Justice Athar Minallah, heard cases [C.P.2646-L/2018, C.A.17-L/2019 and C.A.364-L/2020] regarding the interpretation of the second proviso to Rule 90 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"). The cases were referred to reconsideration by a larger bench due to a disagreement with a previous ruling in “Habib and Company v. MCB” (PLD 2020 SC 227). The central question revolved around the timing of depositing a specified amount as per the second proviso.

The two competing opinions on the meaning and scope of the second proviso are: first, that the deposit of the amount, which is required under the proviso, is not to be made by the applicant along with the application but rather it is to be made on the direction of the court; and second, that such deposit of the amount is to be made by the applicant along with the application without waiting for any direction of the court in this regard, i.e., the application at the time of its filing in the court is to be accompanied by deposit of such amount.

The key principles of statutory interpretation were outlined to guide the analysis. The court emphasized interpreting legislative intent while considering both literal and purposive approaches. The literal interpretation of the second proviso was discussed, highlighting the importance of court direction for depositing the specified amount. The purpose of the second proviso was to deter frivolous objections and ensure expeditious execution proceedings. The effect of Section 19(7) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 on Rule 90 of Order XXI, CPC was examined, concluding that they were complementary.

Finally the Court held that in [C.P.2646-L/2018], the objection petition couldn't be dismissed solely due to non-deposit of the required amount, directing the High Court to determine the deposit amount and allow the petitioner to comply. In [C.A.17-L/2019], the High Court's judgment was set aside as the objections were found valid and not frivolous. Similarly in [C.A.364-L/2020], the Court held that the Banking Court's dismissal of the objection petition solely for non-deposit was incorrect. The appeal was allowed, and the objection petition was deemed pending for further proceedings.

In all cases, the court emphasized the importance of court direction for depositing the specified amount and ensuring objections were not dismissed solely on this ground.