ON Sept 3, 2007, I had pointed out through these columns that court record and orders were either manipulated or stolen from a banking court. One such final order was stolen in 2000 and has not been retrieved or issued against the real date on which its certified copies were applied for.
After a series of complaints were made, the learned judge instead supplied a copy thereof in current dates by which time the limitation was over. In the meantime, the court proceeded with the case by issuing a sale certificate to the plaintiff/auction purchaser against which serious objections were at once lodged by the defendant but to no avail.
The learned judge self-admittedly said that he was ‘pressured’ by NAB and, in turn, ‘instructed’ by some senior judge to dispose of the case on the deadline and obviously that too in favour of the country’s one of the biggest bank defaullters whose name already happens to be with the Supreme Court.
By favouring them in the case matter, the aim was to shun and offload the third party from legal interruption with the obvious intention of squeezing out very substantial ‘reward’ which NAB, as a rule, is said to charge banks on such recoveries or from plea bargains.
With the passing over of the limitation due to failure of the banking court to issue appropriately dated and valid copy of the stolen order, the appellate court was not inclined to entertain the appeal, thus depriving the defendant of his fair right to justice.
This being so, will the honourable Supreme Court recall the matter and see why action was not taken against that banking court for alienating with final order and not supplying it to defendant on the date it was applied for until this day?
Needless to say, the defendant cannot be held liable for the delay in issuing order by the court as also envisaged in the Limitation Act. But, unfortunately, the courts rarely shift from the conventional practice of knocking out even merited cases on forced-out technical grounds, thereby unconsciously condemning such defendants unheard and in doing so unintentionally defeating the service of justice to the already aggrieved party.
May I request the Supreme Court to check this ancient trend in the courts below as the same is outrightly not what the Supreme Court aspires for.
MAZHAR BUTT Karachi