2008 PLP 819 (CLC)
HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION — Appellant Versus FAYYAZ AHMAD KHAN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 819 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION — Appellant Versus FAYYAZ AHMAD KHAN and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | House Building Finance Corporation Act (XVIII of 1952) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 819 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: House Building Finance Corporation Act (XVIII of 1952) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 819 (CLC)?
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: 2008 PLP 819 (CLC) (HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION — Appellant Versus FAYYAZ AHMAD KHAN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Ss. 29 & 30---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.96---Additional amount in respect of rental share due to appellant corporation---Claim for---Application filed under S.30 of House Building Finance Corporation Act, 1952 by the Corporation was decreed to the extent of only principal amount of finance advanced to respondent---Claim of Corporation was that an additional amount should also have been decreed in respect of rental share due to Corporation on its investment made in the immovable, property of respondent---Court below had arrived at the conclusion that Corporation was in default of its obligation in providing agreed amount of finance to the respondent---Being in breach of its own obligation, Corporation was not at liberty to enforce the agreement against the respondent---Principal amount, however had been decreed against the respondent---Contractual arrangement with respondent as provided on record did not contain any power of Corporation to prematurely terminate the financial agreement---Court below had rightly disallowed rental share/mark-up because Corporation could not justify its entitlement, notwithstanding default in meeting its obligation under the financial agreement with the respondent---No grounds to interfere with the impugned order by the courts below having been disclosed, same was affirmed---Counsel for respondent acknowledged respondent's obligation to pay the principal amount forthwith and undertook to discharge the same within one month.
- Nazar Hussain Aslam and Sardar Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 29 & 30
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.96
Additional amount in respect of rental share due to appellant corporation
Claim for
Application filed under S.30 of House Building Finance Corporation Act, 1952 by the Corporation was decreed to the extent of only principal amount of finance advanced to respondent
Claim of Corporation was that an additional amount should also have been decreed in respect of rental share due to Corporation on its investment made in the immovable, property of respondent
Court below had arrived at the conclusion that Corporation was in default of its obligation in providing agreed amount of finance to the respondent
Being in breach of its own obligation, Corporation was not at liberty to enforce the agreement against the respondent
Principal amount, however had been decreed against the respondent
Contractual arrangement with respondent as provided on record did not contain any power of Corporation to prematurely terminate the financial agreement
Court below had rightly disallowed rental share/mark-up because Corporation could not justify its entitlement, notwithstanding default in meeting its obligation under the financial agreement with the respondent
No grounds to interfere with the impugned order by the courts below having been disclosed, same was affirmed
Counsel for respondent acknowledged respondent's obligation to pay the principal amount forthwith and undertook to discharge the same within one month.
Judgment & Decree
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.
This appeal is filed against the decision of the learned District Judge, dated 9-4-1997 whereby an application under section 30 of the House Building Finance Corporation Act, 1952 ("Act") filed by the appellant was decreed to the extent of principal amount of finance/investment advanced to the respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that an additional amount of Rs.9,970 should also have been decreed in respect of rental share due to the appellant-Corporation on its' investment made in the immovable property of the respondent. He submits that this rental share represent the mark-up obligation of the respondent.
3. Learned lower Court has arrived at the conclusion that the appellant is in default of its obligation provided agreed amount of finance to the respondent. Being in breach its own obligation the appellant is not at liberty to enforce the agreement against the respondent. Be that` as it may, the principal amount has been decreed for payment by the respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed that finding. He was invited to show any document on record whereby the appellant was vested with the authority to terminate the finance agreement with the respondent. He relied on section 29 of the Act and submits that the said legal provision has been incorporated in the mortgage deed signed by the respondent. However, he candidly concedes that the said mortgage deed was never exhibited on record. As such contractual arrangement with the respondent as proved on record does not contain any power of the appellant to prematurely terminate the financial agreement. Therefore, the view taken by the learned lower Court has rightly disallowed rental share/mark-up because the appellant could not justify its entitlement notwithstanding default to complete its obligation under the financial agreement with the respondent.
5. In the circumstances, no grounds to interfere with the impugned order by the learned lower Court are disclosed which is accordingly affirmed. However, in the light of the fact this is an old case. Learned counsel for the respondent acknowledges the respondent's obligation to pay the principal amount forthwith and undertakes to discharge the same within one month. Appeal dismissed. H.B.T./H-4/L Appeal dismissed.