Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

2002 C L D 269

2002 C L D 269

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, Munir A. Sheikh and Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, JJ Messrs LYALLPUR OIL & GENERAL MILLS and 6 others‑‑‑Appellants

Versus

HABIB BANK LIMITED‑‑‑Respondent

Civil Appeal No. 1199 of 1996, decided on 26th September, 2000.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 11‑12-1995 of the Lahore High Court passed in R.F.A. No.215 of 1995).

Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑S.9‑‑ Appeal‑‑‑Failure to deposit decretal amount‑‑ Appellants did not deposit the decretal amount for the reason that the mortgage was sufficient security for the recovery of decretal amount‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Appellants were required to deposit the decretal amount‑‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with the judgment passed by High., Court whereby appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Banking Tribunal was dismissed.

Shahid Hussain Kadri, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 26th September, 2000

JUDGMENT

MUNIR A.SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 11‑12‑1995 of the Lahore High Court through which the appeal filed by the appellants under section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 against the judgment dated 17‑7‑1995 of the Banking Court decreeing the suit of the respondent‑Bank for the recovery of the loan amount has been dismissed on account of non‑compliance of the provisions of section 9 of the Ordinance as regards payment of the decretal amount for entertainment of the appeal.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent‑Bank filed a suit against the appellants for the recovery of specific amount which was advanced to it (appellants) as loan alongwith mark‑up. It was decreed in favour of the respondent‑Bank against which the appellants filed appeal under section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984. This provision of the Ordinance provides that no appeal shall be entertained unless the appellants had d posited the decretal amount in the Court. When the appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench of the High Court, it transpired that the appellants had not deposited the decretal amount as required by this provision of, law, as such, the appeal could not be entertained that it was dismissed as such through judgment dated 11‑12‑1990 against which this appeal by leave has been directed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterated his arguments as raised before the High Court that the loan amount had been secured by mortgaging the property of the appellants, therefore, there was no need to require the appellants to deposit the decretal amount as the said mortgage was sufficient security for the recovery of the decretal amount.

4. This argument has been repelled adequately by the High Court by observing that in the law enforceable preceding the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984. there was a provision that instead of requiring the appellants to deposit the decretal amount, adequate security could be ordered to be provided but there is no such provision in the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 and the appellants were required to deposit the decretal amount.

5. The impugned judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any illegality, therefore, this appeal is without any merits which is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Q.M.H./L‑18/L Appeal dismissed

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Supreme Court of Pakistan
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant