2021 PLP 1416 (CLD)

SULTAN TANVIR AHMAD, J.

This Regular First Appeal has been filed under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (XLVI of 2001) ("FIO, 2001") by House Building Finance Company Limited to seek modification of the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2018 passed by learned Judge, Banking Court-I, Faisalabad by way of enhancing the same from Rs.505,073/- to Rs.699,899/- along with costs of suit and cost of funds.

2. Facts necessary to dispose of this Regular First Appeal are that Respondents obtained House Building Finance of Rs.500,000/-. The execution of finance documents has not been denied. Respondents could pay Rs.82,935/- towards installment and went into default. The learned Banking Court has already decreed remaining amount of installments along with costs and costs of the funds from 30.06.2011 till realization.

3. Kh. Muhammad Ajmal, learned counsel for the Appellant has argued that learned Judge Banking Court has wrongly disallowed appreciation charges, termination charges and penalty; that while passing the impugned judgment the learned Judge Banking Court has not appreciated the record and the statements of accounts attached with plaint; that the learned trial Court since rejected the Petition for Leave to Appear (PLA) for non -compliance of mandatory requirement of sections 10(4) and 10(5) of the FIO, 2001, therefore, disallowing the penalty and charges is not tenable in the law.

4. Conversely, Ch. Wasim Ahmad, learned counsel for the Respondents has vehemently opposed the appeal and prayed its dismissal.

5. We have heard the arguments and with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, record is perused.

6. The penalty and charges claimed by the Appellant in this appeal are not permissible in view of the--costs of funds already allowed by the learned Banking Court. This Court has repeatedly observed that any charges which are penal in consequence cannot be claimed as a result of civil default of breach of finance agreement. Reliance can be placed on cases titled Muhammad Farooq Azam v. Bank Al-Falah Limited and others (2015 CLD 1439), Habib Bank Ltd. v. Karachi Pipe Mills Ltd. (2006 CLD 842), Messrs United Bank Ltd. through Authorized Attorneys v. M. Mubeen Khan (2012 CLD 1995), Emirates Global Islamic Bank Ltd. v. Muhammad Abdul Salam Khan (2013 CLD 1291), Dr. Faiz Rasool and others v. The Askari Bank Limited throng Branch Manager/Authorized Authority (2015 CLD 1710) and Khurram Farooq v. Bank Al-Falah Limited and another reported as (2018 CLD 1417).

7. As far as the contention of the Appellant that the learned Banking Court had no jurisdiction to disallow partial claim without granting Petition for Leave to Appear and Defend in terms of Section 10 of FIO, 2001 is concerned; the same has no force in view of law laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled Apollo Textile Mills Ltd. and others v. Soneri Bank Ltd. (2012 CLD 337) and this Court in case titled Passco v. Omer Bilal Traders (Pvt.) Limited (2007 CLD 492).

8. For what has been discussed above, we find no merit in this appeal, which is, therefore, dismissed. KMZ/H-15/L Appeal dismissed.