2016 PLP 201 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD BUX KUMBHAR — Petitioner Versus HABIB BANK LIMITED and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 201 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Amir Hani Muslim, Mushir Alam and Maqbool Baqar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BUX KUMBHAR — Petitioner Versus HABIB BANK LIMITED and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 201 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 201 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Amir Hani Muslim, Mushir Alam and Maqbool Baqar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 201 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD BUX KUMBHAR — Petitioner Versus HABIB BANK LIMITED and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mehmood Abdul Ghani, Advocate Supreme Court, Muhammad Taufiq, GM and Nargis Azam Panwar, DGM-II for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.
- Date of hearing: 31st July, 2015.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against order dated 21-4-2015 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in Civil Revision No.68 of 2014)
O. VII, R. 11
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Scope
Plaintiff/employee unable to prove his belated claim
Full and final settlement of pension and other dues between the Bank and its employee
Employee, at the time of retirement received all his dues from the Bank without any objection or reservations
Subsequently after a lapse of three years from retirement, plaintiff filed suit for damages against the Bank claiming that his pensionary benefits and other dues had not been properly calculated by the Bank
During the period of three years between his retirement and filing of suit, the plaintiff neither raised any objection, nor claimed any right or dues in relation to his past service/retirement
Besides plaintiff could not satisfy the court regarding his claim of miscalculation of his pensionary benefits and other dues, and also failed to point out any anomaly in the statement submitted in court by the Bank which contained details of all the dues paid to the plaintiff by the Bank
Three Courts below had rejected the plaintiff's claim (by accepting the Bank's application for rejection of plaint under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.)
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused accordingly. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
MAQBOOL BAQAR, J.
Through the above petition, the petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 21-4-2015, passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh in Civil Revision No. 68 of 2014, whereby the said revision has been dismissed.
2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was an employee of the respondent-bank. Admittedly, after putting in 25 years of service, he applied for early retirement through his letter dated 24-3-2009, which request was accepted and he was accordingly retired from service w.e.f. 01.4.2009, and an amount of Rs.1,775,108.80 was paid tot him towards full and final settlement of his dues which amount he received without any objection or reservations, He also applied for release/return of the title documents of his property deposited by him with the respondent-bank by way of equitable mortgage, The documents were thus returned to him on 06.4.2009. It is only after a lapse of about three years that he filed suit for damages on 02.4.2012. Admittedly, since his retirement and till the date of filing of his suit throughout, the petitioner neither raised any objection, nor claimed any right or dues in relation to his past service/retirement, The respondent-bank filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint on the ground that no cause of action has been disclosed by the petitioner for filing the suit, The other ground urged was that the suit was time barred also. The application was allowed and the plaint was rejected by the trial Court. Appeal filed against the said order also was dismissed, and it was through the impugned order that his revision application was dismissed by the learned High Court, in which order it was also stated that the petitioner only alleged miscalculation of his dues by the respondent-bank.
3. The petitioner could not satisfy us also regarding his claim that the amount due towards pension has not been calculated properly, though he has been a professional banker and claims to be a Master in Economics, and also a Diploma Holder from the Institute of Bankers. He has not been able to point out any anomaly in the statement containing the details of the dues paid to him as submitted by the respondent-bank before us. Since the three forums below have rejected the petitioner's claim, we cannot take account at this stage, particularly when the petitioner has failed to point out any miscalculation and/or any amount of lawful dues having not been paid to him.
4. In view of the foregoing, this petition is dismissed and leave to appeal refused. MWA/M-36/SC Petition dismissed.