Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: UNITED BANK LTD. VS Respondent: FATEH SONS CORPORATION
1988 C L C 1268
1988 C L C 1268
[Lahore]
Before Abaid Ullah Khan and Falak Sher, JJ
UNITED BANK LTD.‑‑Appellant
versus
Messrs FATEH SONS CORPORATION LTD. and another‑‑Respondents
Regular First Appeal No. 147 of 1983, decided on 21 t November, 1987.
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑
‑‑‑0. XXXVII, Rr. 2 & 3‑‑Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979), S.6‑‑Suit for recovery of loan‑‑Leave to defend suit‑‑Discretion of Court‑‑Trial Court granted leave to defend suit subject to deposit of disputed amount in Court on specified date‑‑On such date on request of defendants Court extended time for deposit of amount and plaintiff‑Bank did not raise any objection to such extension‑‑Trial Court being empowered to extend time for making deposit of amount or to waive payment thereof, no injustice, held, had been done to the interests of plaintiff‑Bank if Court had not insisted that amount should have been deposited by defendants on specified date.
M. Saleem Sahgal for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 21st November, 1987.
JUDGMENT
ABAID ULLAH KHAN, J.‑‑This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Special Court (Banking), Lahore, dated the 4th August, 1983, decreeing the appellant's suit for the recovery of Rs.4,62,081 to the extent of Rs.2,84,926. The appellant, United Bank Limited, Katchery Bazar Branch, Faisalabad, advanced loan of Rs.5,00,000 to the respondents. The appellant brought suit for realising the outstanding amount of loan of Rs.4,62,081 against the respondents. On the 3rd March, 1983, the learned Special Court (Banking) granted leave to the respondents to defend the suit on payment into Court of Rs.3,93,658 by the 3rd May, 1983. On the last mentioned date the learned counsel for the defendants sought some time to check up the accounts. The suit was adjourned to the 16th June, 1983. From the statement of the learned counsel for the parties recorded by the learned trial Court on the 16th June, 1983, it is evident that the following items had been illegally and without any contractual basis charged to the account of the respondent,‑‑
(i) Penal interest Rs.98,379
(ii) Interest on the penal interest. Rs.48,936
(iii) Insurance premium Rs.16,740
(iv) Interest on insurance premium Rs.13,194 ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
Total: Rs.1,77,249 ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
2. The learned trial Court accordingly deducted the amount of Rs.1,77, 249, which even the learned counsel for the appellant concedes that the appellant is not entitled to charge, from the amount claimed by the appellant and decreed the suit for the realisation of balance of Rs.2,84,936. On merits the learned counsel for the appellant does not find any fault with the impugned judgment and decree.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Court ought to have decreed the suit in the full amount claimed by the appellant on the *3rd May, 1983, when it was found that the respondents had not fulfilled the condition of deposit of Rs.3,93,658 on which leave had been granted to them to defend the suit, is not maintainable. The appellant's participation in the subsequent proceedings, without raising any objection to the respondent's non‑fulfillment of the condition of deposit of Rs.3,93,658, indicates that it wanted to settle the matter and was agreeable to the deduction of the amount of Rs.1,77,249 (which had been charged without any legal justification) from the amount claimed. Even otherwise the learned trial Court had power to extend the time for making deposit of Rs.3,93,658 or to waive the payment of the said amount and in the circumstances of the case it can very well be inferred A that the learned Court was not disposed to insist on compliance with the condition of deposit of Rs.3,93,658. No injustice has been done to the interests of the appellant. This appeal is without any force and is dismissed with costs. H.S.T./1i‑17/L Appeal dismissed.