1989 PLP 1380 (SCMR)
M. IQBAL FASIH‑‑Petitioner Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1380 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood JJ |
| Parties | M. IQBAL FASIH‑‑Petitioner Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1380 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1380 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1380 (SCMR) (M. IQBAL FASIH‑‑Petitioner Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 3rd September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 3‑12‑1983 in C. R. No.1664‑D of 1983). (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑O.VI, R.2‑‑Suit for recovery of money‑‑Limitation‑‑Petitioner did not deny liability to pay original amount‑‑Supreme Court would not bless the wrongful appropriation of public money, by granting leave to appeal, which fell within its discretionary jurisdiction‑‑Plea of limitation at leave to appeal stage was of no help. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ‑‑‑S.34‑‑Constitution of Pakistan ‑ (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Interest/penalty‑ Interest/penalty could be made part of decree when the suit was filed or decreed against the petitioner‑‑High Court's judgment did not suffer from any legal defect in this behalf Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant‑debtor against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court, The respondent's suit was decreed against the petitioner The petitioner's appeal and civil Jarring having been dismissed, he has now sought leave to appeal The amount involved was Rs.993.30. Learned counsel frankly stated that the liability regarding the original amount due from the petitioner is not denied. He, however, vehemently contended that the suit was barred by limitation. He also contended that the petitioner should not have been burdened with any amount in addition to the original amount due. In other words, he argued that in any case it could not have been awarded in favour of the respondent The liability to pay the original amount not having been denied, we would not bless the wrongful appropriation by the petitioner of public money which belonged to the respondent, by granting leave to appeal; which falls within the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the plea of limitation before this Court at this stage in this context is of no help to the petitioner for seeking leave to appeal. Regarding the question of interest penalty we would no grant leave to appeal. It cannot at all be argued that when the suit was filed against the petitioner in 1978 or when the decree was passed against him in 1982, the interest penalty could not be made a part of the decree. Be that as it may, the High E Court's judgment, as it is, cannot be treated as having suffered from any legal defect in this behalf when it was passed on 3‑12‑1983. For all these reasons, leave to appeal is refused as it is not a .fit case for the grant of leave to appeal. M.A.K./M‑888/S Leave refused.