1988 PLP 1361 (CLC)

‑‑‑S. 7‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),

0. XXXVII, R. 3‑‑Sui for recovery of loan‑‑Leave to appear and defend suit‑‑Appellants/ borrowers were granted leave to appear and defend suit for recover` of loan against them conditionally on furnishing security to the satisfaction of Court, but appellants failed to furnish same in spit of extension of time‑‑Suit amount being much more than amount require( for security, order granting conditional leave and thereafter passing decree in default of furnishing of security, held, was in accordance with law which could not call for interference in appeal. Kamal Mansoor Alam for Appellants. S. Iqbal Ahmed for Respondents. AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑This appeal is directed against the orders judgments dated 1‑2‑1987 and 20‑5‑1985 respectively. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the respondents a banking company filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.14,63,937.91 with 14% interest thereon with quarterly rests from the date of the suit till the payment, under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance). The Appellants applied for leave under Order 37, Rule 3, C . P. C . , which was granted by the aforesaid order, dated 20‑5‑1985 on the condition that the appellants (herein) shall furnish a security of Rs.2 lacs to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court within a month. It is an admitted position that the appellant failed and neglected to furnish the security in spite of extension of time by two months. Consequently the learned Single Judge passed the decree on 1‑2‑1987. The appellants have filed the present appeal against the above order judgment. Alongwith the appeal the appellants have also filed an application under section 12 (5) of the Ordinance for acceptance of the mortgaged property as a security, namely, plot of land bearing No. C‑4, admeasuring 1629.7 Sq. yards or thereabout situated in Karachi Fish Harbour Area, West Wharf Road, Karachi. We had issued a notice of this application to the respondents. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Kamal Mansoor Alam learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the valuation of the plot is more than the suit amount particularly in view of the fact that the statement of account filed by the respondents was not correct. On the other hand Mr. S. Iqbal Ahmed learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that as a matter of fact the appellants defaulted in payment of rent amounting to Rs.1,14,079.85, with the result that the lessor is contemplating to take action in respect of the above default. According to Mr. Iqbal Ahmed the plot is to be auctioned whereas Mr. Kamal Mansoor Alam disputes this factum. However, it has been admitted that there is a default in payment of rent of the above amount. In our view, the order of the learned Single Judge granting leave conditionally on furnishing security of Rs.2 lacs only against the suit claim of Rs. Over 14 lacs was a proper and reasonable order. The above property was mortgaged for a sum of Rs.10 lacs as a security. The appellants had A failed to furnish the security as pointed out hereinabove. Even today the learned counsel for the appellants is not in a position to state, whether the appellants can furnish the security of Rs.2 lacs. In our view the order under appeal granting conditional leave and thereafter passing of the decree in default of the furnishing of security are in accordance with law and does not call for interference. However, before parting with the above discussion we may observe that before drawing a final decree the amount of interest may be calculated on the basis of the quarterly rests and the decretal amount be corrected accordingly. With the above observation the appeal is dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed