2022 PLP 877 (CLD)
HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED through Branch Manager — Appellant Versus PERVAIZ AHMAD — Respondent
| Citation | 2022 PLP 877 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED through Branch Manager — Appellant Versus PERVAIZ AHMAD — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 877 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2022 PLP 877 (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: 2022 PLP 877 (CLD) (HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED through Branch Manager — Appellant Versus PERVAIZ AHMAD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9 & 22
Markup
Appellant/House Building Finance Corporation was aggrieved of not awarding of markup beyond period of agreement and other charges
Banking Court rightly declined claim of appellant/company in respect of markup beyond period of agreement as well as other charges which were sought to be included in the claim
High Court modified judgment and decree passed by Banking Court
Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
The respondent has already been proceeded against ex-parte.
2. This appeal brings a challenge to the judgment and decree dated 12.4.2016 passed by the Banking Court, Lahore. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the decree has been issued for 150000/- in favour of the appellant and against the respondent/defendant and the rest of the claim of the appellant has been turned down. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant had brought a suit for recovery of Rs.819299/- against the respondent in respect of a facility which was sanctioned on 13.2.2019 and a letter of acceptance was also issued in respect of that facility. Subsequently, the parties executed the deed of assignment and partnership on 15.2.1990. In the plaint itself the appellant has not brought the precise breakup of the amount claimed and the basis for that claim. However, we do not find that the judgment and decree has been passed on valid grounds since the amount decreed i.e. Rs.150000 was the principal amount and therefore the Banking Court did not include the repayment of principal as well as the share of the appellant-corporation in the rental income. According to the terms of the agreement of assignment and partnership an amount of Rs.2471 per month was payable towards the discharge of liability and was to be repaid in 180 monthly installments. The said amount comes to Rs.444780/- and admittedly did not liquidate the liability in this regard. Thus the total claim which could be made by the appellant-corporation was Rs.444780/- and to that extent the decree is required to be modified. We agree however with the Banking Court in declining the rest of the claim made by the appellant in respect of markup charged beyond the period of agreement as well as other charges which were sought to be included in the claim.
3. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the Banking Court is modified accordingly. The suit shall be deemed to have been decreed for an amount of Rs.444780/- with cost of the suit and cost of funds. MH/H-15/L Appeal allowed.