2006 PLP 1223 (CLD)

Instant appeal assailed the order-dated 1-2-2006 passed by the learned Judge Banking Court, Sargodha, whereby application of the appellant/judgment-debtor for treating his case under Category "A" and for issuance of No Objection Certificate/Return of charge documents, was dismissed.

2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that .the appellant was allowed House Building Loan by the respondent for a sum of Rs.85,000 on the basis of registered deed of assignment/ partnership executed by the appellant on 3-9-1985. Thereafter, the appellant took another loan of Rs.65,000, on the basis of another deed of assignment/partnership executed on 30-11-1986. Appellant defaulted in re-payment of finance facility availed, which necessitated filing of suit by the respondent for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,56,797 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Sargodha. Appellant did not appear in the suit and the learned Additional District Judge after recording of ex parte evidence, decreed the suit of the respondent on 9-5-1998. The decree so passed, was put to execution, which was transferred to the Banking Court, Sargodha on account of promulgation of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loan, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997.

3. Pending execution petition, a settlement/incentive scheme was launched by the Federal Government which prescribed 3 different categories with regard to investment slabs, and had different settlement packages. Appellant made payment to the respondent according to category "A'" but the respondent claimed payment under category "B" with the reasoning that appellant was given total loan amount beyond Rs.1,00;001 against his both the accounts.

4. Banking Court/Executing Court on 21-12-2005 handed over settlement package to the appellant along with a notice requiring payment of Rs.45,000 earlier to 31-12-2005. Appellant filed an application praying that his case may be treated in Category "A" but the same was dismissed on 1-2-2006, hence this appeal. Respondent in response to notice by this Court has appeared and was represented through its counsel.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Undisputedly, appellant availed initial finance facility of Rs.85,000 against the registered deed of assignment/partnership dated 3-9-1985 vide Account No.22100866-JU. Later, the appellant applied for another loan, which was sanctioned on 13-9-1986 for an amount of Rs.65,000 against a separate deed of assignment/ partnership, vide fresh Account No.221001074-LY. After announcement of settlement package by the Federal Government, two different notices were sent by the respondent itself i.e. Notice No.HBFC-DO-2005-SGD-1006/1142 DATED 19-7-2005 REALTING TO account No.22100866-JU and the other Notice No. HBFC/DO/2005/SGD/ 1006/ 1143 dated 19-7-2005 about his other Account. Two distinct Accounts were not only maintained by the respondent itself but separate two acceptance letters were issued on different two occasions. There was nothing on the file to show that second loan was sanctioned in the name of the appellant, in addition to the earlier granted loan whereas there is ample documentary proof of the fact that both of those accounts were distinctly sanctioned, maintained and were separately required to be adjusted. Claim of the respondent that since both these Accounts were in the name of one person i.e. the appellant, by joining amount of both these accounts, his case will fall within the category "B" and the package prescribed for adjustment of this category would be applicable to the appellant, making him liable to pay another amount of Rs.51,000 appears to be absolutely unwarranted, unjustified and against the spirit of settlement/incentive scheme. Words used in this scheme are "Loan amount" which are relatable to each account and not to each individual thus we have no ambiguity that the case of the appellant was covered by category "A" and by applying package of this category, appellant has already cleared his both the Accounts and he is not liable to pay anything more to the respondent. Scan of record and impugned order revealed that view formed by the Banking Court that case of the appellant frills under the category "B" of the incentive scheme, is absolutely unjustified thus, the same is not sustainable.

6. For the reasons noted above, impugned order dated 1-2-2006 passed by the Banking Court Sargodha, being opposed to the incentive scheme, is set aside and in result thereof, application of the appellant is accepted and his case is treated the one covered by category "A" and the respondent corporation is accordingly directed to return the charge documents, relieving the appellant of liabilities of both the loan advances, above noted. There will be no order as to costs. S.A.K./S-132/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.