2003 PLP 128 (CLD)
Mian SALEEM RAFI‑‑‑Appellant Versus COUNTRY MANAGER, CITIBANK and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 128 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ |
| Parties | Mian SALEEM RAFI‑‑‑Appellant Versus COUNTRY MANAGER, CITIBANK and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 128 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 128 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 128 (CLD) (Mian SALEEM RAFI‑‑‑Appellant Versus COUNTRY MANAGER, CITIBANK and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rai Tanveer Arshad for Appellant.
- Shahid Ikram Siddiqui for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 10th April, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.9‑‑‑Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.118 & 119‑‑ Recovery of Bank loan‑‑‑Fact of deposit of amount‑‑‑Onus of proof‑‑‑Borrower alleged that he had deposited the amount with one officer of the Bank and produced a receipt in proof of the same‑‑‑Neither the witnesses to the receipt were produced before the Banking Court nor signatures of the official matched with the other receipt issued by the same official‑‑‑Borrower, to prove the alleged payment, had also relied upon statement of the counsel for the Bank which was made on the basis that the parties had entered into an agreement where-under the borrower had made part payment of the decretal amount while the balance had to be paid in instalments‑‑‑Banking Court decided the matter against the borrower‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Onus to prove the alleged payment lay heavily on the borrower as he had relied on the receipt and it was incumbent upon the borrower to prove the receipt‑‑‑Borrower could not rely upon the statement made by the counsel of the Bank‑‑‑Borrower had failed to discharge the onus of proof placed on him‑‑‑Bank had referred to various documents on record including an application by the borrower showing the borrower's admission that the decree had not been satisfied and also his intent to make payment of the decretal debt if time was allowed to him‑‑‑Banking Court had rightly passed the order against the borrower in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.‑‑‑The grounds on which this appeal was admitted to regular hearing, have been noted in the admitting order dated 7‑3‑2002. The record of the case was requisitioned and is available with us. The facts of this case are straightforward. The allegation made by the appellant ins that he had, in fact, deposited a sum of Rs.34,00,000 with the respondent‑Bank. According to the appellant, he had made payment of the amount to one Salman Azam, an employee of the respondent-Bank. To support this contention reliance was placed on a receipt dated 23‑10‑1998 allegedly executed by the said Salman Azam. The said receipt has not been proved. The two witnesses to the receipt have not, been produced in Court. Furthermore, even the alleged signatures of Salman Azam do not match the signatures under which another receipt had been issued by him. In the circumstances, the learned Banking Court rightly held that the appellant had not been able to prove payment of the aforesaid sum of Rs.34,00,000 as alleged by him.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, laid stress on a statement made on behalf of the respondent- Bank by its learned counsel. The circumstances in which that statement was made, have been fully narrated in the second execution petition filed by the respondent‑Bank. It is obvious that the onus to prove payment of Rs.34,00,000 to the Bank lay heavily on the appellant. Since the appellant had relied on the receipt, referred to above, it was incumbent upon him to prove the same. The appellant could not have placed reliance on the statement of learned counsel for the respondent‑Bank which clearly was made on the basis that the parties had entered into an agreement whereunder the appellant had made part payment of the decretal debt, while the balance had to be paid in instalments.
3. After examining the original record, we are not in the slightest doubt that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proof placed on him. Although he led evidence, he did not produce the so‑called marginal witnesses who had signed the receipt allegedly executed by Salman Azam on behalf of the respondent‑Bank. In addition to the above, learned counsel for the Bank has referred to various documents on record including an application by the appellant showing the appellant's admission that the decree had not been satisfied and also his intent to make payment of the decretal debt if time is allowed to him.
4. For the foregoing reasons, we, therefore, find that he impugned order is not open to exception. This appeal, is a consequence, is dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./S‑420/L Appeal dismissed.