1989 PLP 3284 (MLD)
Syed MUHAMMAD HASHIM — Plaintiff Versus Mst. FATIMA JAMAL — Defendant
| Citation | 1989 PLP 3284 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Wajihuddin Ahmed, J |
| Parties | Syed MUHAMMAD HASHIM — Plaintiff Versus Mst. FATIMA JAMAL — Defendant |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 3284 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 3284 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Wajihuddin Ahmed, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 3284 (MLD) (Syed MUHAMMAD HASHIM — Plaintiff Versus Mst. FATIMA JAMAL — Defendant). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 30th November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
O. XXXVII, R. 1 & S. 151--Suit for recovery of money--Defendant though served personally with process of Court yet remained absent throughout--Suit decreed--Promissory note did not stipulate payment of any interest--In view of official acknowledgement of depreciation in the value of Pakistan currency and in recognition of Muslim law concept of the liability of a debtor to make good an amount equivalent to that borrowed, plaintiff allowed 10% per annum on the principal amount claimed till realization of decretal amount. Bank of Oman Ltd. v. East Trading Co. Ltd. P L D 1987 Kar. 404; Irshad H. Khan v. Mrs. Parween Ejaz P L D 1987 Kar. 466 and Habib Bank Ltd. v. Mohammad Hussain and others PLD 1987 Kar. 612 fol. S. M. W. Hazratji for Plaintiff. Nemo for Defendant.
Judgment & Decree
S. M. W. Hazratji for Plaintiff. Nemo for Defendant. Date of hearing: 30th November, 1988. This is a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,25,000 on the basis of a Promissory Note shown to be executed by the Defendant on 25-5-1987. The case of the plaintiff is that the promissory Note being payable on demand, due demand was made on the defendant for payment but. she failed to comply with the same. The defendant, though served personally with the process of this Court, has remained absent throughout. The Promissory Note does not stipulate payment of any interest. However, in view of the Official acknowledgement of ongoing depreciation in the value of Pakistan currency and in recognition of Muslim Law concept of the liability of a debtor to make good an amount equivalent to that A borrowed, I would in exercise of powers of this Court under Section 151, C.P.C. allow 10% per annum to the plaintiff on the principal amount claimed in Suit. Such payment at 10% per annum as aforesaid shall ensure towards adjustment of the referred depreciation and the same shall continue to be reckoned till realization of the decretal amount. The above view is based on my respectful concurrence with the substance of the dicta of my learned brother, Tanzilur Rehman, J. in the cases of Bank of Oman Ltd. v. East Trading Co. Ltd. P L D 1987 Kar.404; Irshad H. Khan v. Mrs. Parween Ejaz P L D 1987 Kar.466 and Habib Bank Ltd. v. Muhammad Hussain and others P L D 1987 Kar. 612 declaring that interest is not payable in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. This Suit is, therefore, decreed for the principal amount of Rs.1,25,000 plus 10% per annum from the date of the Promissory Note i.e. 25-5-1987 till realization. M.A.K./M-803/K Suit decreed.