93CLC1316 (PLP)

‑‑‑‑S. 19‑‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OXXXIX, Rr.l & 2‑‑‑Stay order against recovery of Bank loan through coercive measures‑‑‑Recovery of Bank loan, as stipulated, in accordance with the terms and conditions of agreement between plaintiff (borrower) and defendant‑Bank (creditor)‑‑‑Plaintiff (borrower) instituting suit against defendant (creditor) seeking declaration and permanent injunction besides a decree for recovery of specified amount as a counterblast to deprive the Bank of the remedy available to it for recovery of the amount of loan‑‑‑Plaintiff's claim for interim relief was accepted by Trial Court but dismissed by Appellate Court below‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Bank would be well within its powers to adopt measures for recovery of its loan amount, which plaintiff admittedly had not paid‑‑‑Plaintiff was quite aware of the conditions of loan, when he had applied for such loan‑‑‑Plaintiff was required to discharge his liability and pay the principal amount, alongwith the interest accumulated; he could not make grievance of the fact that the Bank could not have recourse to coercive means‑‑‑Bank could not be deprived of the remedy available to it for the recovery of amount of loan, as stipulated in accordance with the conditions of the agreement between the parties and in terms of provisions of Agricultural Development Bank Ordinance‑‑‑Amount would be recoverable as arrears of land revenue‑‑‑Plaintiff had stressed on his claim to certain amount as damages or compensation payable by the Bank which was a novel way of putting creditor in the state of counter‑accountability‑‑‑Plaintiff's claim that the Bank could not press for payment of loan amount, unless it was willing to make compensation for the loss in business sustained by the borrower (plaintiff) could not be accepted‑‑‑Court could no presuppose that plaintiffs claim was valid and the specified amount claimed by him had a justifiable or concrete basis‑‑‑Whatever was due from the plaintiff, he must be prepared to pay and whet ever would be found to be due from the Bank, plaintiff would be able to obtain at the end of the trial‑‑Precondition for grant of stay order was existence of a prima facie case and a pronounced or manifest exposure of aggrieved person to an irretrievable injury, which conditions were non‑existent‑‑‑Plaintiff was only endeavouring to evade his liability and delay the process set in motion by the creditor Bank for recovery of the amount of loan, which was the legal and moral obligation of the debtor to discharge, without resorting to any kind of clever manoeuvring or manipulation‑‑‑Plaintiff was not found entitled to grant of interim relief in circumstances. Mian Mahammad Latif v. Province of West Pakistan PLD 1970 SC 180 and Brig. Muhammad Ishaq and others v. Punjab Province and others 1983 CLC 520 rel. Ch. Muhammad Iqbal Abid for Petitioner. The civil revision is directed against a judgment delivered on 6‑2‑1993 by Mr. Muhammad Aslam Khokhar, the learned District Judge, Sahiwal, reversing an order dated 18‑9‑1991 passed by Mr. Ishtiaq Ahmad, Civil Judge, Sahiwal, in the course of proceedings of a civil suit instituted by Muhammad Yaseen Tahir against Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and the Province of Punjab, seeking a declaration and a permanent injunction, besides a decree for recovery of Rs.34,900:

2. For setting up a poultry farm the plaintiff had approached the Agricultural Development Bank for a loan to the tune of Rs.3,50.000. He was however sanctioned a loan in the amount of Rs.2,27,000, and in the year 1986 an initial sum of one lac rupees was advanced for primary phase of the project. On construction of sheds, servant quarters, office, etc, and for purchase of 5,000 chickens, the petitioner claims to have spent Rs.34,500 in addition to one lac rupees received by him from the bank. Functionaries of the bank at Sahiwal delayed release of the remaining amount of loan (Rs.1,27,000), and this prevented the petitioner from completing his project, and he sustained a loss in the business, for which the bank people were responsible and were bound to compensate him, it is so urged. He has attributed the inaction on the part of the bank people to mala fides on their part.

3. So obviously this plea cannot straightaway be believed and the plaintiff will have to prove it by leading evidence in trial. Keeping this consideration apart, it will not be disputed, that the bank will be well within its powers to adopt measures for recovery of its loan amount, which the plaintiff admittedly had not repaid. The plaintiff‑petitioner was quite aware of the conditions of loan, when he had applied for it and had got the amount of loan. He is required to discharge his liability and pay the principal amount, alongwith the interest accumulated; and he cannot make grievance of the fact that the bank could not have recourse to coercive means. It has very rightly been remarked by the learned District Judge that the bank could not be deprived of the remedy available to it for recovery of the amount of loan, as stipulated, in accordance with the conditions of the agreement between the parties and in terms of provisions of Agricultural Development Bank Ordinance, 1961. The amount is recoverable as arrears of land revenue; and for the purpose, the District Collector could also be approached by the bank. It can also not be urged that the amount sought to be recovered is an unascertained or undetermined sum.

4. According to the petitioner, a substantial land holding belonging to him stands mortgaged with the bank in lieu of the loan and the bank could proceed to make the recovery by putting this property to auction and sale. Well, this is option of the creditor. Will it not be more suitable and feasible an act, on the part of the borrower, to get his land redeemed, on arranging for the funds and making payment of the loan amount to the bank?

5. Stress has been laid by the petitioner on his claim to certain amount (Rs.34,900), as damages or compensation payable by the bank. It is a novel way of putting the creditor in a state of counter‑accountability. To say that the bank cannot press for payment of the loan amount unless it agrees to make compensation for the loss in business sustained by the borrower is indeed an odd argument advanced by the latter. If and when he is able to justify his counterclaim, the Court will certainly not hesitate to award him a decree in that regard; but it cannot be presupposed that it is a valid claim and the sum calculated and claimed by the petitioner has verily a justifiable or concrete basis. Whatever is due from the petitioner, he must be prepared to pay, and whatever would be found to be due from the respondent‑Bank he would be able to obtain at the end of the trial.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relics on PLD 1970 SC 180 Mian Muhammad Latif v. Province of West Pakistan, and 1983 CLC 520 (Lahore), Brig. Muhammad Ishaq etc. v. Punjab Province etc. Pre‑condition for grant of stay order undoubtedly is existence of a prima facie case and a pronounced or manifest exposure of the aggrieved person to an irretrievable injury. In the instant case these conditions appear to be non‑existent. The plaintiff‑petitioner is only endeavouring to evade his liability and delay the process set in motion by the creditor for recovery of the amount of loan, which it is the legal and moral obligation of the debtor to discharge without resorting to any kind of clever manoeuvring or manipulation. Learned counsel has not been able to satisfy this Court as to what material irregularity, if any, has been committed by the learned District Judge in announcing the impugned order and how after all have the dictates of justice been frustrated. No interference is called for and the revision petition being without merit is hereby dismissed in limine. A.A/M‑932/L Revision dismissed.