JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---None has appeared for the respondent-Bank although the case was adjourned for hearing to an actual date for today in the presence of learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. The name of learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has also appeared in the cause list. The bank is. Therefore, proceeded against ex parte.
2. This appeal impugns the judgment and decree, dated 2-4-2001 passed by the learned Banking Court-V. Lahore. By means of the said judgment and decree a suit filed by Mst. Rukhsana Bashir appellant/plaintiff. For recovery of - Rs,26,50,000 was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation.
3. The facts of this case are simple. Mst. Rukhsana Bashir filed a suit for recovery of the aforesaid amount in view of the wrongful seizure and detention of a vehicle by the respondent-Bank. The vehicle was seized by the Bank on 22-3-1997 while the suit for damages was filed by Mst. Rukhsana Bashir on 11-2-2000. The learned Banking Court proceeded to dismiss the suit on the ground that Article 29 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act was applicable to the case and since the said Article provided limitation period of one year, the suit of Mst. Rukhsana Bashir was time-barred. We have considered the contents of Article 29 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act. The same reads as under:--- "29. For compensation for wrongful seizure of movable property under legal process.(One year)The date of the seizure."
From the above provision, it is clear that the same is only applicable where movable property is wrongfully seized under legal process. Legal process can only mean a process of some Court established under law.
4. In the present case the admitted position is that the movable property of Mst. Rukhsana Bashir comprising of a vehicle was impounded by the Bank without any legal process having been issued by any Court. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the appellant contends that' Article 49 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act is applicable. Article 49 aforesaid reads as under:--- "49. For other specific movable property. Or for compensation for wrongfully taking or injuring or wrongfully detaining the same.(Three years)When the property is wrongfully taken or injured, or when the detainer's possession becomes unlawful."
We are in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the appellant Mst. Rukhsana Bashir that it was Article 49 reproduced above which was applicable to the suit filed by her and not Article 29.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and decree, dated 2-4-2001. The case shall be remanded to the learned Banking Court for decision on the remaining issues.