1988 PLP 2167 (CLC)

ABAID ULLAH KHAN, J.‑‑This appeal against the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Banking, Lahore, dated the 6th December, 1982, decreeing' the respondent's suit for the recovery of Rs.4,81,817.64 with costs, pendente lite and future interest against the appellants arises out of the following circumstances. The late Chaudhry Muhammad Siddique and his three sons, who are appellants 2, 3 and 4, were partners of appellant firm, Asian Building Works, Lahore. During the lifetime of Chaudhry Muhammad Siddique, appellant I availed of overdraft facility in its .Current Account No.61063 with the respondent, Grindlays Bank Limited, The Mall Branch, Lahore. After the death of Chaudhry Muhammad Siddique, the firm defaulted in paying back the amount overdrawn with interest to the respondent Bank. Consequently the respondent had to institute suit on the 24th July, 1978, for realization of the outstanding amount of Rs.4,81,817.64 which included interest due till that date.

2. Though the appellants in the first instance contested the suit yet on the 5th December, 1982, their learned counsel made the following statement admitting the respondent's claim and requesting for remission of interest and costs and for grant of one and a quarter years' time for payment of the amount. The learned counsel for the respondent stated that there was no justification for remission of interest and that six months' time might be given (for payment of the decretal amount). The learned trial Court decreed the suit with costs and interest though it allowed the appellants a period of one and a quarter years for payment of the decretal amount.

4. The mainstay of the appellants in appeal is that their counsel had accepted the respondent's claim without their instructions. The learned counsel for the appellants before the learned Special Judge, Banking, was fully empowered to admit and compromise the respondent's claim. The appellants cannot be heard to say that their counsel did not possess authority to end the dispute in the manner he acted.) They are bound by his action. The learned counsel for the appellants made grievance of the fact that at least the learned trial Court have absolved the appellants from the liability of payment of pendente lite interest which was certainly more than the principal amount of debt and was equal to the amount claimed by the respondent. It is interesting to note that pendente lite interest comes to Rs.4,79,516, which is indisputably in excess of the principal amount and nearly touches the amount claimed ' in the suit. The pendente lite interest is rather exorbitant and somewhat unconscionable. On all equitable considerations it needs substantial reduction. The interests of justice will be fully met if the amount of pendente lite is reduced to Rs.2,00,

000. The appeal is partially accepted and the decree of the learned trial Court is modified to the extent that the appellants will pay only Rs.2,00,000 as pendente lite interest. The parties are left to bear their own costs. H . B . T . / A‑307 / L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal partially accepted.