1989 PLP 1869 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a "debtor", against the dismissal by the High Court, of his Writ Petition which had arisen out of proceedings for the recovery of the debt. The findings of fact on the questions of merits are against the petitioner and it was hardly a case for interference in Writ jurisdiction of the High Court. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner laid before the Court different propositions:‑‑ One that the petitioner was not liable, therefore, the amount was not due from him, Two that m case it is held that the petitioner was liable, he alone was not liable, recovery could also be made from the other concerned party; three if it was rightly found against the petitioner that he was liable to make the payment, he might have made the payment if he was given concession with regard to interest and other similar reliefs. After some hearing when the learned counsel found that the relief could not be granted in this case so as to set aside the findings of fact rendered against the petitioner, he requested that the respondents' side be directed by the Court to waive the interest and give further legitimate relief to the petitioner in that case an undertaking would be given on his behalf to make the payment. In so far as the waiving of interest is concerned, we are unable to make any positive direction. However, it would be open for the respondents authority to give such reliefs in respect of interest or otherwise to the petitioner which are permissible under the legitimate normal banking practices in cases like the present one. This observation would be applicable even if sanction in this behalf is to be obtained from higher authorities. After some discussion, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and their representatives who remained present during the hearing of the petition, did not oppose the request for grant of the aforcreferred reliefs. At the same time they were not in a position to make any firm promise in this behalf. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case and the above-noted development which took place during the hearing of this petition, we grant leave to appeal therein with further direction that in case proper undertaking to make the payment in accordance with an agreed formula to be worked out between the parties within 48 hours, the appeal would proceed further to its normal conclusion. In case, however, no such undertaking is given to the Court this leave granting order shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. No security for the time being. For further proceeding in this behalf the case shall come up on 28th March, 1989. M.A.K./S‑317/S Order accordingly.