2002 PLP 439 (CLD)
UNITED BANK LIMITED‑‑‑Appellant Versus Messrs CLIMAX TRADING CORPORATION and 7 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 439 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawad S. Khawaja and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ |
| Parties | UNITED BANK LIMITED‑‑‑Appellant Versus Messrs CLIMAX TRADING CORPORATION and 7 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 439 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 439 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawad S. Khawaja and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 439 (CLD) (UNITED BANK LIMITED‑‑‑Appellant Versus Messrs CLIMAX TRADING CORPORATION and 7 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Allah Ditta Sajid for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondents:
- Date of hearing: 3rd December, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 7, 15 & 21‑‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.18‑‑‑Suit for recovery of amount‑‑‑Bank alleged to have inadvertently credited suit amount to the account of defendants being maintained with it, which was withdrawn by defendants in 1977‑‑‑Bank filed suit on 11‑11‑1981, which was dismissed by Banking Court being time‑barred‑‑‑Contention of Bank that on account of provisions contained in S.18 of Limitation Act, 1908, period of limitation did not run against Bank, was wholly misconceived‑‑‑Section 18 of Limitation Act, 1908, would be applicable, where a person having a right to file a suit had been kept from the knowledge of such right by means of fraud committed on him by the other side‑‑ Defendants had not committed any fraud nor had they committed any act to prevent Bank from acquiring knowledge of its rights‑‑ Mistake, if any, was entirely on the part of Bank and was not induced by any deceit or fraud on the part of defendants‑‑‑Bank had the means of detecting its mistake, which in fact had been detected through an audit of its accounts‑‑‑Section 18 of Limitation Act, 1908, thus had no application in circumstances. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.18‑‑‑Applicability‑‑‑Section 18 of Limitation Act, 1908, would be applicable, where a person having a right to file a suit had been kept from the knowledge of such right by means of fraud committed on him by the other side.
Judgment & Decree
Allah Ditta Sajid for Appellant. Nemo for Respondents: Date of hearing: 3rd December, 2001. JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.‑‑‑The respondents were ordered to be served through citation in the daily Nawa‑e‑Waqt for today. This has been done. None has appeared for the respondents. They are, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.
2. This appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 2‑2‑1999 passed by the learned Banking Court No.V, Lahore. The appellant‑Bank filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 39,487.20 against the respondents/defendants. The said suit was resisted on merits and also on the ground that it was time‑barred.
3. The respondents/defendants were maintaining an account with the appellant‑Bank. It is the case of the appellant Bank that the aforesaid amount was inadvertently credited to the said account which was withdrawn by the respondents in 1977. The suit, in the present case, was filed on 11‑11‑1981. As such, the suit was filed clearly beyond the period of limitation:
4. Before the learned Banking Court and also before us today it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the period, of limitation did not run against the appellant on account of the provisions contained in section 18 of the Limitation Act. This argument of learned counsel for the appellant is wholly misconceived. Section 18 of the Limitation Act is only applicable where a person having a right to file a suit, has been kept from the knowledge of such right by means of fraud committed on him by the other side.
5. In the present case, it is obvious that the respondents/defendants did not commit any fraud nor did they commit any act to prevent the appellant/Bank from acquiring knowledge of its rights. In fact, in response to a specific question, learned counsel for the appellant conceded that the Bank itself had committed a mistake while crediting the account of the respondents and that such mistake had been detected on a later date pursuant to an audit of the account of the appellant‑Bank. It is thus clear, firstly, that the mistake, if any, was entirely on the part of the appellant‑Bank and was not induced by any act of deceit or fraud on the part of the respondents. Secondly, it is evident that the Bank had the means of detecting its mistake and, in fact, such mistake was detected through an audit of the account of the Bank. In these circumstances, section 18 of the Limitation Act has no application.
6. No other argument was advanced by learned counsel for the appellant to dislodge the finding of the learned Banking Court that the suit filed by the appellant‑Bank was time‑barred. In these circumstances, we find that this appeal is without merit. It is, therefore, dismissed. S.A.K./U‑20/L Appeal dismissed.