1988 PLP 1378 (MLD)
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1378 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abaid Ullah Khan and Akhtar Hassan, JJ |
| Parties | NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1378 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1378 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abaid Ullah Khan and Akhtar Hassan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1378 (MLD) (NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Jamshed Ahmad for Appellant.
- S.M.Nazim for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 7th June, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 8(2) & 12‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.34 & 34‑B‑‑Court in granting interest to Bank on loan from date of institution of suit to date of decree could exercise its discretion under S.34, C.P.C. but no such discretion' was allowed by S.34‑B, C.P.C. in matter of refusing interest from date of decree till payment as it is obligatory for Court to grant interest from date of till payment‑ Decree of Banking Court in so far as it refused. Interest to Bank from date of decree till payment, was bad in law.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑This R.FA. arises from the decree dated 6‑2‑1984 which was passed by. the learned District Judge, Gujranwala, in his capacity as Special Court (Banking), under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, on a confessional statement ‑node by the respondents defendants.
2. The suit was for recovery of Rs.31,402.13 with interest at the rate of 14% per annum. Parties entered into a compromise whereunder the entire amount was agreed to be paid in twelve monthly instalments. The respondents, of course, made a request for relinquishment of interest from the date of institution of the suit till payment, but counsel for the appellant‑Bank did not agree to give this concession to the respondents and insisted that the suit be decreed with interest as also the costs. The learned trial ,Judge while granting interest upto the institution of the suit in the decree, did not allow the same from the date of institution of the suit till payment. Aggrieved by it the appellant‑Bank has preferred the present regular first appeal.
3. The only grievance made in the appeal was that the interest after the institution of the suit till payment of the decretal amount had been wrongly refused. We quite find that the objection is well‑placed. While interest from the date of the suit to the date of decree is in discretion of the Court under section 34, C.P.C. no such discretion is allowed by section 34‑B, Cr.P.C. in the matter of refusing interest from the date of decree till payment. In other words, it is obligatory for the Court to grant interest from the date of decree till payment and 'thus the impugned decree in so far as it refused interest to the appellant‑Bank from the date of decree onwards till payment, was bad in law.
4. Accordingly the appeal is accepted and the decree under appeal is modified to the extent that the appellant‑Bank shall be entitled to interest at the agreed rate from the date of decree till payment. However, there was no compulsion to grant the appellant interest during the period of pendency of the suit particularly when the respondents agreed to clear the entire debt within a short span of one year. Parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./N‑146/L Appeal accepted.