2001 PLP 460 (CLC)

The facts in brief are that respondent No.1 during his lifetime on 4‑5‑1993 obtained financial assistance from the appellant United Bank Limited to purchase Nissan Truck under the Prime Minister Incentive Scheme introduced by the then Prime Minister of Pakistan. The truck was handed over for a sale price at Rs.6,91,342, after mark‑up, the price was raised to Rs.10,24,

050. Thereafter, the truck was handed over by the appellant to respondent No.1. The respondent failed to pay installments, therefore, the Bank filed suit, which was decreed. The execution application was filed for the satisfaction of decree and the vehicle bearing Registration No.0819, Chassis No.2416, Engine No.018938 was impounded by the Bank/appellant. The respondent No. l had expired and his widow Mst. Asma filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 read with section 151, C.P.C. for return of vehicle. The said application was allowed on 20‑1‑2000 and the Bank was directed to hand over the vehicle on the payment of amount to the tune of Rs.5,00,000 by respondent No.

1. The aforesaid order is impugned in this appeal. It is contended by the learned counsel that the order is illegal and the learned Banking Court has failed to satisfy the decree as the amount more than Rs.5,00,000 was outstanding against the respondent. It is submitted that the vehicle cannot be restored unless the full amount is paid to the appellant. The execution application cannot be winded up under the law. We have scrutinized the impugned order. It appears that the learned executing Court has passed the impugned order after considering all the aspects of the case. The judgment‑debtor Abdul Hameed expired on 3‑5‑1999 and after his death amount of Rs.95,000 was deposited on 15‑11‑1999 by his widow towards the satisfaction of the decree. The operative part of the impugned order reads as under:‑‑ "It is also undisputed that judgment‑debtor Abdul Hameed expired on 3‑5‑1999, yet an amount of Rs.95,000, is deposited on 16‑11‑1999 by the applicant towards satisfaction of decree. Presently an amount of Rs.5,G1,650 is outstanding against demised M.D. and in my view, if the documents are got signed from applicant for discharging the liability who should further ensure repayment of outstanding dues according to approved installments and by furnishing additional security the interest of Bank and borrower would be properly safeguarded. More particularly in case the vehicle is put to auction first right of purchase shall be offered to J.D. (his successors), yet the same will not even fetch price equal to the outstanding dues and consequently both parties viz. Bank and the family of borrower would suffer losses. Under these circumstances, and in the interest of parties, it is ordered that the vehicle be restored to the applicant being successor‑in‑interest of J.D. subject to her signing loan documents for the balance amount and furnishing additional security/guarantee in the sum of Rs. eight lacs, who shall regularly make payment of installments after two months of the restoration of vehicle as per rescheduling already ordered by the Bank/D.H. R.S.L. charge shall be recovered according to policy/rules proportionality with the installments. The charge shall be created against the property offered as an additional security/securities in the name of D.H. Bank which will meet ends of justice. The application filed by applicant Mst. Asma widow of Abdul Hameed stands allowed accordingly. The proceedings of Execution Application are winded up at this stage with liberty to the D.H Bank for filing or initiating proceedings against applicant Mst. Asma or any other beneficiary at proper juncture if warranted by the circumstances. " The operative part of the impugned order reproduced hereinabove shows that it does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety nor it is without jurisdiction. Moreover, the present appeal is not maintainable in law. It will be pertinent to' reproduce hereinbelow subsection (5) of section 21 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997. "(5) No appeal, review or revision shall lie against any interlocutory order of the Banking Court other than an order passed under subsection(6) of section 18. " The plain reading of the above provisions of law shows that no appeal, review or revision shall lie against any interlocutory order of the Banking Court other than order passed under subsection (6) of section 18 of the Act. The provisions of subsection (6) of section 18 of the Banking Act are to be fully complied with before taking any further action against judgment‑debtor. It appears from the record that provisos of section 18 have not been complied with. The appellant has not filed any undertaking as required under subsection (6) of section 18 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans' Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997. Consequently, the present appeal is misconceived and the impugned order does not require any interference. Appeal stands dismissed. H.B.T./U‑9/K Appeal dismissed.