2005 PLP 1678 (CLD)
BANK OF PUNJAB — Appellant Versus AMJAD LATIF RANA and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1678 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | BANK OF PUNJAB — Appellant Versus AMJAD LATIF RANA and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XL V1 of 2001), (b) Administration of justice |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1678 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XL V1 of 2001), (b) Administration of justice as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1678 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1678 (CLD) (BANK OF PUNJAB — Appellant Versus AMJAD LATIF RANA and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 3, 9 & 22
Defendant secured loan from Bank amounting to Rs.2, 50, 000 which was payable in 72 equal monthly instalments
After grace period of 3 months defendant having failed to discharge his liability, Bank filed suit for recovery amounting to Rs.365,835.53 in which Bank had claimed mark-up amounting to Rs.1,56,080
Banking Court decreed suit without granting mark-up of Rs.156,080 as claimed and instead mark-up of Rs.6503 was only granted
Bank was entitled to claim mark-up only in case parties had executed buy-back agreement in terms of sanctioned letter, which was neither relied upon nor produced before Trial Court by the Bank
Defendant having not executed any agreement, Banking Court, in circumstances had rightly not granted mark-up as claimed by Bank
In absence of any illegality or infirmity in impugned judgment of Banking Court, appeal was dismissed.
Party could not be permitted to raise an altogether new ground of attack or defence by departing from its previous pleadings.
Judgment & Decree
CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.
Brief facts out of which the present appeal arises are that the respondent secured loan from the appellant amounting to Rs.2,50,
000. The respondent has to repay the loan to the appellant in 72 equal monthly instalments. After grace period of 3 months the respondent failed to discharge his liability. The appellant-Bank filed suit for the recovery amounting to Rs.365,835.53 in Banking Court III, Lahore. The Banking Court decreed the suit of the appellant to the extent of Rs.256,
503. Banking Court did not grant mark-up amounting to Rs. 156,080 to the appellant, which was claimed by the appellant and was granted mark-up 'amounting to Rs.6,
503. The appellant being aggrieved filed this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Banking Court erred in law to grant mark-up amounting to Rs.6,503 instead of total mark-up claimed by the appellant amounting to Rs. 1,56,
080. He further submits that the respondent has committed default of 34 instalments. The Banking Court erred in law to grant mark-up to the extent of first default committed by the respondent, which is not in accordance with section 3 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001.
3. We have given our anxious considerations to the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record ourselves. The appellant has not attached copy of the agreement executed between the appellant. The appellant did not mention this fact in the documents relied upon by the bank as is evidenced from the suit filed before the Banking Court. It is settled law that a party cannot be permitted to raise an altogether new ground of attack or defence, by departing from its previous pleadings as per the law laid down by the Honourable Court in Mst. Murad Begum and others v. Muhammad Rafiq and others PLD 1974 SC
322. The appellant is entitled to claim mark-up only in case the parties had executed buy-back agreement in terms of the sanctioned letter, which was neither relied upon nor, produced before the trial Court by the appellant. As the respondent has not executed any agreement, which is not borne out from the record of the Banking Court, therefore, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Banking Court, thus, the appeal has no merits and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./B-59/L Appeal dismissed.