2002 PLP 1730 (CLD)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1730 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1730 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1730 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1730 (CLD) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Bilal Bashir for Appellants.
- Khushnud Akhtar Raja for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 9, 17 & 22‑‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42‑‑‑Suit for declaration by plaintiffs to discharge liability of their deceased father under an incentive scheme issued by Bank‑‑‑Plaints on 30‑11‑2000 attempted to make payment of 20% of outstanding amount, but same was not accepted by Bank‑‑‑Plaintiffs then filed suit on 21‑12‑2000 and Court directed them to deposit entire amount as per terms of incentive scheme on or before 31‑12‑2000, which was done accordingly‑‑‑Banking Court dismissed the suit on the ground that plaintiffs in order to qualify for the benefit of incentive scheme, had not deposited sum of 20% within month of November, 2000‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Plaintiffs had themselves made an attempt to make such payment‑‑ Plaintiffs' bona fides were shown from the fact that they had paid entire amount due under the scheme on 21‑12‑2000, which was well before its expiry on 31‑12‑2000‑‑‑Suit, in. circumstances, could not have been dismissed‑ ‑‑High Court accepted the appeal and set aside impugned judgment and decree.
Judgment & Decree
The appellants impugn the judgment and decree dated 26‑2‑2002 passed against them in favour of the respondent‑Bank by the learned Banking Court No. II, Faisalabad.
2. The facts of this case are straight-forward. The two appellants themselves did not obtain any facility from the respondent‑Bank. It was their father who had obtained finance but died four years prior to the start of the .present litigation. The suit was instituted by the appellants because they wanted to discharge the liability of their father under an incentive scheme issued by the respondent‑Bank. The appellant also attempted to make payment of 20% of the outstanding amount to the respondent‑Bank on 31‑11‑2000. The Bank, however, did not accept the payment of the said 20% amounting to Rs.33,
500. It is for this reason the appellant filed a suit on 21‑12‑2000 before the learned Banking Court, Faisalabad. On that very date the learned Banking Court directed the appellant to deposit the entire amount as per terms of the aforesaid scheme on or before 30‑12‑2000 which was the last date within which payment under the incentive scheme, could have been made. This was done by the appellants.
3. The suit of the appellants, however, was dismissed on the short ground that the sum equal to 20% i.e. Rs.33,500 had been deposited within the month of November, 2000 in order for the appellant to qualify for the benefits of the aforesaid scheme. We find from the record that the appellants had themselves made an attempt to make payments as aforesaid. Furthermore, their bona fides are shown from the fact that they paid the entire amount due under the scheme before its expiry on 31‑12‑2000. In fact, the deposit of the entire due amount of Rs.1, 67,500 was made on 21‑12‑2000 which is well before the expiry date i.e. 31‑12‑2000.
4. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the payment was made by the appellants in accordance with the terms of the incentive scheme. Their suit, in the circumstances, could not have been dismissed. This appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 26‑2‑2002 are, therefore, set aside. S.A.K./M‑1312/L Appeal allowed.