1. MUSHIR ALAM, J.--- The order, dated 8-4-2004 on application under section 12(2), C.P.C. has been impugned by the appellant Pakland Cement Ltd. It appears that the respondent No,1 tiled a suit against Director, Finance, Pakland Company Ltd. It appears that the suit was decreed vide judgment, dated 15-10-1998. Execution was filed being No,43 of 1999 that led the appellant to approach the Court for setting aside of the judgment and decree obtained behind their back.
2. It was contended by Mr. Saalim Salam Ansari learned counsel for the appellant that appellant is a public limited company, owns its independent legal entity as opposed to its distinctive share- holder and Directors. It was come that even the defendant was sued without naming any person and blanket judgment and decree was obtained, which clearly amounts to misrepresentation and fraud not only upon the Court but also to the appellant, who was never a party before the Court.
3. When Mr. Salimuddin Nasir was confronted to the above position it was contended that Corporate Charge Card was issued on the guarantee of the Pakland Cement Ltd., to its Corporate Director whosoever it may be and the Company is bound to honour such liability incurred. From the record that has been placed on record it appears that "Corporate Charge Card" in fact was issued to be used by Corporate Director one Yazdi, J. Mehta who was Finance Manager, who utilized it as apparent from the statement of accounts and even the legal notice has been issued to Mr. Yazdi J: Mehta on 21-7-1998 calling upon him to reimburse the liability followed by this suit. Nowhere from the pleading it appears that the appellant was made party to the suit nor even such case appears to have been made out in the plaint, as is being urged now that a corporate card was issued to the appellant for the use of its Director Finance. It seems that pleadings in suit lack in material particulars and even proper parties were not added or joined. It is settled position of law under Order I, rule 1, C.P.C. that all persons may be joined in one suit against whom any right or relief in respect of or arising out of the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No,1 that, appellant cannot be absolved of its liability, but the facts remain that, the appellant a separate corporate legal entity was not joined as party to the proceeding. Therefore, in our opinion there appears to be misrepresentation as to the liability of the party by the respondent No,
1. The appeal is accordingly allowed; application under section 12(2), C.P.C. is granted; judgment and decree, dated 8-4-2004 in Suit No,565 of 1998 is set aside. Respondent No,1 is directed to add the Director Finance by name who had availed Corporate Charge Card and the appellant, Pakland Ltd., as necessary party in the plaint, before the Banking Court within the two weeks from today. Mr. Salimuddin Nasir undertakes to waive notice before the Banking Court on 1-10-2005 and file leave to defend application within time stipulated under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 before the Banking Court. The Banking Court shall decide leave to defend application in accordance with law.
4. The impugned order is set aside.