P L D 2003 Peshawar 241 (PLP)

Date of hearing: 8th September, 2003. Through the instant revision petition the petitioner‑Bank prayed for setting aside the, judgments/orders passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Haripur in Case No.59/6 and in Review Petition No.8/12 dated 7‑12‑2000 and 12‑12‑2000 respectively to the effect that Muhammad Riaz respondent No.1 is not entitled to receive 5% profit/interest from the Current Account opened and held in the name of Additional District Judge, Haripur in the petitioner‑Bank but is only entitled to draw an amount of Rs.9,51,400 from the petitioner‑Bank.

2. The relevant brief facts of the case are that the Collector Land Acquisition, Ghazi Barotha Hydro Power Project, Turbella acquired land measuring 225 Kanals, 10 Marlas owned by Muhammad Riaz respondent No.1 vide award dated 15‑11‑1995 and corrigendum award dated 30‑11‑1995. That when the compensation amount was being paid to respondent No. 1 by respondent No.4, one Fida Hussain respondent No.3 filed objection petition which was referred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Haripur and the payment of Rs.9,51,400 was withheld. Thereafter the said amount was sent to the said Court (Additional District Judge, Haripur) by respondent No. 4 through Voucher No. 27, Chaque No.721829 dated 7‑12‑1995. The respondent No.2 subsequently deposited the said amount in its Current Account No.916 vide dated 26-12‑1995 in the petitioner‑Bank. On 14‑12‑1999 Muhammad Riaz respondent No.1 submitted an application before respondent No.2 for the release of the above payment alongwith interest, on which the respondent No.2 passed the impugned orders directing the petitioner‑Bank to pay an amount of Rs.9,51,400 alongwith 5% profit/interest to Muhammad Riaz, respondent No.

1. Hence this petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case as well as the case‑law on the subject.

4. Perusal of the record reveals that there wag a Current Account No.916 already opened vide dated 31‑1‑1981 in the name of Additional District Judge‑I, Haripur. After receipt of an amount of Rs.9,51,400 from respondent No.4, the Additional District Judge, Haripur deposited the same in his Current Account No.916 on 26‑12‑1995 in the National Bank of Pakistan, Main Branch, Haripur (petitioner). The learned counsel for the petitioner argued with full force and referred Chapter III, Constituents Accountant‑General Instructions of National Bank of Pakistan Book of Instructions where clause 2 envisages that no interest is allowed on Current Account balances. The relevant clause 2 of the above Book is reproduced hereunder:‑‑ "

2. The bank insists upon fixed minimum balances on current accounts. Half yearly charges etc., however, levied on those accounts which are unremunerative in relation to the work involved. The scale of charges on unremunerative accounts and the miscellaneous charges which the Bank makes for postages, note remittances, carrying out of standing instructions, etc., are laid down in Section VII of Supplement No.1. No interest is allowed on current account balances.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 when confronted with this situation and asked to rebut this crucial proposition, he had no answer but requested for time which was allowed and the case was adjourned for today i.e. 11‑9‑2003. Even today the learned counsel for respondent No.1 failed to produce any case‑law or amendment in the above referred Book of Instructions of National Bank of Pakistan. Secondly on the query of the Court that petitioner‑Bank being not a party can agitate the matter before the higher forum, the learned counsel for the petitioner in response referred (PLD 1996 Lahore. 99) that a stranger can file appeal against the judgment which was adverse to his right/title as he is an aggrieved person and his interest is adversely affected.

6. In case the learned Additional District Judge, Haripur was mindful to help respondent No.1 which he deserved, he instead of depositing the acquisition amount of respondent No.1 in the Current Account should have deposited the same in the profitable scheme which was a proper exercise. By depositing the disputed amount in the National Bank of Pakistan in the current account the Court had dealt with the matter off‑handedly and in that had damaged the interest of respondent No.1. The Courts are duty bound to take care and safeguard the interest of the litigant in a legal and justifiable manner specially in money matters. Depositing the disputed amount the learned Additional District Judge made respondent No.1 to suffer heavy financial loss and deprived him of interest/profit which he was otherwise entitled but due to act of the Court the petitioner‑Bank cannot be made to suffer on no fault on his part, because of the negligence of the Courts. As such it will not be out of place to direct the subordinate Courts at this juncture that while dealing with the money of litigant/public where almost minors, widows and aged needy persons are involved, they should bear in mind that the same amount shall be deposited in the profitable scheme so that when drawing the said amount the party should be able to fetch the income of his capital amount which is already stuck up for considerable period.

7. Resultantly this revision petition is accepted, the impugned orders dated 7‑12‑2000 and 12‑12‑2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Haripur are set aside to the extent of grant of 5% interest/profit on the principal amount of Rs.9,51,400 to Muhammad Riaz respondent No. 1.

8. The office is directed to send the copy of this judgment to the Registrar, Peshawar High Court, Peshawar for onward instructions to the subordinate Courts. M.B.A./923/P????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.