1988 PLP 1938 (CLC)

Regular First Appeal No. 100 of 1981, decided‑ on 15th February, 1988. ‑‑‑Ss. 6, 7 & 12(1)‑‑Trial Court in ordering payment of decretal amount by instalments and refusing to grant pendente lite interest not found to have exercised its discretion in an arbitrary manner‑ Judgment‑debtors meanwhile having discharged their liability in toto, no interference with impugned judgment, held, was called for‑‑Appeal otherwise found to be out of time by thirteen days and no cause for condoning delay shown‑‑Appeal dismissed on merits as well as being time‑barred. M. Nazir Sheikh for Appellant. Jari Ullah Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 15th February, 1988. ABAID ULLAH KHAN, J.‑‑The Australasia Bank Limited, Goal Cloth Bazar Branch, Lyallpur (now Faisalabad), appellant, brought suit for the recovery of outstanding amount of loan of Rs.1,03,906.93 against the respondents. Mahmood Ahmad Kausar, respondent No. 2, who is the proprietor of Messrs Grand Traders, Katchery Bazar, Faisalabad, respondent No.l, made statement before the learned trial Court of the Special Judge, Banking, that he had to pay the amount in dispute, that he was a poor man or he had suffered a great loss in business and that the decretal amount might be allowed to be paid in instalments. The learned Court decreed the suit with costs and future interest though it declined payment of pendente lite interest. It directed the respondents to liquidate the judgment debt in instalments of Rs.6,000 per mensem each.

2. The appellant feels aggrieved with the order of the learned trial Court in so far as it did not award pendente lite interest and permitted the respondents to pay the decretal amount by instalments. The respondents have by now paid off the entire amount of debt and nothing more is due from them. The learned Court was possessed with the power to order payment of decretal amount by instalments and it could very well refuse to grant pendente lite interest. It did not exercise its. discretion in an arbitrary manner. In the circum stances, especially when the respondents have discharged their liability in toto, we do not think any interference with the impugned judgment of the learned Court is called for.

3. We may mention that the appellant's appeal is time‑barred and the appellant has not made any move for getting the delay condoned. The learned trial Court passed judgment and decree on the 22nd December, 1980. The appellant made application the same day for procuring certified copies of judgment and decree. The copies were ready by the 1st March, 1981. However, the appellant took their delivery on the 16th March, 1981. It filed appeal in this Court on the 13th April, 1981. The appeal, which could have been filed within thirty days, of passing of judgment and decree 'as provided by section 12(1) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 (XIX of 1979), was, even allowing concession for the time consumed in the preparation of the certified copies of the judgment and decree, out of time by thirteen days. No cause for condoning delay has been shown. The appeal is dismissed on merits as well as being time‑barred. The respondents will get costs of the appeal from the appellant. S. Q./A‑295/L Appeal dismissed.