2005 PLP 1537 (CLD)
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Branch Manager — Appellant Versus SHAH JEHAN — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1537 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Branch Manager — Appellant Versus SHAH JEHAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1537 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1537 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1537 (CLD) (AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Branch Manager — Appellant Versus SHAH JEHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9 & 22
Suit filed by Bank was decreed by including mark-up from date of institution of suit till realization of decretal amount
Amount of mark-up claimed by Bank after expiry of agreement till institution of suit, was excluded
Grievance of Bank was that mark-up should have been included because there was a stipulation in the agreement between parties for payment of mark-up
Bank, however had not been able to show the time from which the respondents were obliged to pay mark-up after expiry of agreement
Effect
Mark-up could not be allowed without any specific stipulation in the agreement in that behalf
In absence of any error in the judgment of Court below, appeal against said judgment, was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
The appellant Bank brought a suit for recovery against the respondent to the tune of Rs.2,59,907 on 20-12-2001. No leave application was filed by the respondent. Therefore, the learned Banking Court after proceeding ex parte' against the respondent has decreed the suit in favour of the appellant only to the extent of Rs.1,75,063 out of the suit amount by including the mark-up from the date of institution of the suit till the realization of the amount. The amount of mark-up claimed by the appellant after the expiry of the agreement till the institution of the suit has, however, been excluded. The grievance of the appellant is that the said mark-up should have been included because there is a stipulation in the agreement between the parties for payment of mark-up in this behalf. However, he has not been able to show us the time from which the respondents were obliged to pay the mark-up after the expiry of the agreement. As regards the argument that the mark-up should have otherwise been allowed, we are afraid, the mark-up cannot be allowed without any specific stipulation in the agreement in this behalf. We do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Court below. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./A-814/L Appeal dismissed.