0
KARACHI, Oct 18: The Sindh High Court ordered a police inquiry into a number of serious allegations levelled by a petitioner against two SHOs.
Petitioner Jalaluddin Lakho of village Saeed Khan Lakho, tehsil Rohri, alleged that the SHOs of Kandhra and Abad implicated him in a case and arrested and detained him and his son, Saleh Lakho.
During their confinement at a police station, they were tortured and forced to perform shameful acts. Their shrieks were transmitted to members of their family, who were asked to pay Rs 200,000 by way of illegal gratification for the release of the two detainees.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Mohammad Nawaz Shaikh requested the court to order registration of a case against the two police officials.
A division bench, comprising Justices Zahid Kurban Alavi and Maqbool Alavi, asked the Sukkur AIGP to hold an inquiry into the petitioner’s allegations and submit a report within a month.
RECOVERY SUIT: Chief Justice of High Court of Sindh, Justice Syed Saeed Ashhad, has directed transfer of a recovery suit filed by the Bank of Khyber against its borrower, pending before a banking court to the original banking jurisdiction of the High Court of Sindh where a suit on the same subject matter and between the same parties, filed by the borrower is pending for adjudication against the Bank of Khyber, adds APP.
The order was passed on a civil transfer application filed by the petitioner, Nazimuddin, who filed a suit for settlement of accounts, as well as recovery of excess amount of about Rs 51 million and release of mortgaged properties against the Bank of Khyber in the original banking jurisdiction of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi.
The bank had filed a suit for recovery of Rs48 million before the Banking Court No-III at Karachi.
Saalim Salam Ansari, advocate, appearing on behalf of the applicant contended before the bench that the cause of action giving rise to the aforesaid suits is one and the same ie export refinance facilities granted by respondent No 1 to the applicant.
It is the contention of the applicant that he had repaid the amount utilized by him in pursuance of the above export refinance facilities and as a matter of fact had made excess payment for which the suit had been filed.
Arshad Tayebaly, advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent bank, submitted that the funds utilised by the applicant under the aforesaid finance facilities have not been repaid, for the recovery of which the bank was forced to file the above suit.
The bench allowing the application said that both the learned counsel conceded that the cause of action giving rise to the above two suits was one and the same and similar and identical questions and issues are involved for adjudication in both the above suits.
The anxiety of Arshad Tayebaly is that in suit No.B-20 of 2002 evidence of applicant Nazimuddin has been recorded, cross-examination has been completed and the matter is now fixed for the evidence of bank’s officers/ representatives; whereas in suit No 297 of 2001 application for leave to defend the suit has not yet been decided and in view of the above, the respondent bank is likely to suffer as consolidation of suits will result in inordinate delay in disposal of the bank’s suit, the bench noted in its order.
In the first place, this is no ground for refusing permission for two identical suits between the same parties before one and the same court and secondly this situation can be brought to the notice of the learned judge on the banking side of this court and appropriate measures can be taken to ensure that the suit of the bank is not un-necessarily delayed or prolonged, the bench said.
With the above observations, this transfer application is allowed. Suit No 297 of 2001 pending in banking court No-III, Karachi, stands transferred on the banking side of this court to proceed alongwith suit No.B-20 of 2002, the bench ordered.
