1992 PLP 1935 (CLC)

Mian Asrar‑ul‑Haq for Appellant. Sardar Sami Hayat for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th February, 1990. On the application for loan of Iqbal Amin Sheikh, petitioner, a sum of Rs.44,100 equal to $ 918 for the import of machinery was sanctioned by Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan, respondent. The credit agreement was executed on 31‑8‑1966. The petitioner mortgaged his immovable property and machinery with the respondent‑Bank. The petitioner made default in the payment of loan, interest and other charges and a sum of Rs.47,834.55 was due to him on 18‑11‑1969. So the respondent‑Bank made an application to the learned District Judge, Lahore, under section 39 of the Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan Ordinance, 1961 for an order for the sale of the immovable property and the machinery mortgaged by the petitioner as security for the loan together with the interest and other charges of the respondent Bank. The application was resisted on various grounds. The petitioner denied to have violated terms and conditions of the credit agreement. The parties led evidence. The respondent‑Bank produced Muhammad Amin PW and tendered documents Exhs.P.1, P.2, P.3, P.4 and P.5 in evidence. To rebut this evidence, Iqbal Amin Sheikh petitioner appeared as D.W.1. The learned District Judge accepted the application and directed that the petitioner shall pay interest @ 7.50 per cent per annum and a sum of Lb. 2108.15 (sic.) for the period from 18‑7‑1972 to the date of the order i.e. 5‑1‑1987 and shall also pay on the sum of Lb. 2,108.15 (sic.) plus interest at the said rate from the date of the order till its payment at the contracted rate. Hence this appeal.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued that the judgment of the District Judge suffers from non‑reading of the oral. as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties and as such is not a valid and proper judgment. The learned counsel for the respondent has tried to support the impugned judgment.

3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for, the appellant. I find that although the parties had produced witnesses and, the, respondent Bank had tendered documents in evidence, yet the learned District Judge has not attended to the evidence. He has passed judgment without discussing the evidence produced by the parties. So much so the names of, the witnesses produced by the parties and the documents tendered by the plaintiffs have not been mentioned in the judgment. That being the position, the judgment passed by the learned District judge cannot be approved. So the appeal is accepted and the order of the learned District Judge dated 5‑1‑1987 is set aside and the case is sent back to him for fresh decision of the case on the basis of the evidence already on record after affording parties opportunity of being heard. The learned District Judge will decide the case within two months of the receipt of [his order. The parties shall bear their own costs. H.B.T/1‑30/L Case remanded.