2004 PLP 1322 (CLD)

SYFD JAMSHED ALI, J.‑‑The judgment and decree dated 7‑10‑1999 of the Banking Court No. 1, Faisalabad, has been assailed in this appeal, which arises out of the following circumstances.

2. Muhammad Nawaz and Haq Nawaz, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 alongwith Mst. Jindan Bibi, appellant obtained a loan in the sum of Rs.2,49,100 for the purchase of Tractor Trolley in the year 1990, from the Agriculture Development Bank: On 30‑10‑1996, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit for rendition of accounts against the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, the Manager of the concerned Branch of the Bank and the appellant. It was averred that in accordance with the agreement between the plaintiffs‑respondents and the appellant, they shad to repay the loan in equal shares i.e. by the plaintiffs and by the appellant and that the plaintiffs had repaid the amount' of their share while the appellant was a defaulter But the Bank authorities were insisting to recover the entire outstanding amount from them. The suit was contested. It was averred by the Bank that the appellant and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable to liquidate the entire liability: the appellant was proceeded against ex Parte vile order dated .22‑12‑1996 but the said order was recalled vide order dated 21‑1‑1997. On 14‑7‑1999, the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 recorded a statement before the learned trial Court that up to 31‑12‑1997, a total amount of Rs.2,18,144 was due. against the plaintiffs and the appellant out of which while the plaintiffs had paid a sum of Rs.144,000, the appellant had paid a sum of Rs.55,000 only and while the plaintiffs had to pay a sum of Rs.64,572 to the Bank, the appellant had to pay a sum of.Rs.1,53,

572. He also stated that the interest due on the outstanding amounts as from 31‑12‑199'7 shah also be paid by the plaintiffs respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the appellant.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant accepted the said offer of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs‑respondents. Accordingly, the suit was disposed of by the learned Banking Court vide judgment dated 7‑10‑1999. According to, the, direction in the judgment, the Bank would be entitled to receive an amount of Rs.64,572 and .interest thereon from 1‑1‑1998 from the plaintiffs‑respondents while it ‑will receive an amount of Rs.1,53,572 from the appellant alongwith interest thereon from 1‑1‑1998. The Bank authorities were restrained permanently from recovering any amount beyond Rs.64,572 and interest, payable thereon from the plaintiffs‑respondents. The decree, however, incorporated the direction only to the extent of the liability of the plaintiffs‑respondents as determined in the judgment.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that in the suit filed by the, plaintiffs‑respondents, no decree could be passed against the appellant. He further contended that even according to the objection taken by, the Bank (in reply to the application for, temporary injunction), the suit was not maintainable. It is further stated that the Bank not being party to the arrangement between the plaintiffs and the appellants, the suit could not have been disposed of in the manner it has been done by the, learned Banking Court.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 submits that the appellant having agreed to apportion the liability before the learned Banking Court cannot be permitted to back out from the said arrangement. '

6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The decree impugned in this appeal does not contain any direction against the appellant although her liability was determined in the judgment to the tune of Rs.1,53,572 with interest from 1‑1‑1998. The decree directs, payment of an amount of Rs.64,572 with interest by the plaintiffs respondents. In fact, only the Bank could have a grievance against apportionment of the liability. We were informed that the Bank did not challenge the impugned judgment and decree. As far as the appellant is concerned, We do not find any executable direction against her in the decree impugned in this appeal. The appellant accepted the liability of Rs.1,53,572 with interest from 1‑1-1998 and the Bank Authorities shall be at liberty to recover the said amount in accordance with law from the appellant. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with the above observation. M.I./J‑14/L Appeal dismissed.