2002 PLP 1276 (CLD)

MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J. ‑‑‑Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, through the filing of the present appeal, has partially challenged the judgment and decree, dated 12‑1‑1995, whereby the then Chairman,, Banking Tribunal, although passed a decree for the recovery of Rs.1.54,557 in favour of the appellant‑Bank yet declined to award a sum of Rs.8,246.

2. Briefly stated the facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant‑Bank filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.1,62,803 alongwith liquidated damages, against the respondent, before the then Banking Tribunal under the provisions of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, (since repealed). Pursuant to the issuance of show cause notice. the respondent filed the reply to the said show‑cause notice, within the stipulated period, and thereafter the learned counsel for the respondent made a statement before the then Banking Tribunal that the parties are not at issues. except that the appellant‑Bank has wrongly calculated the amount of mark‑up. Although the statement of accounts was originally filed by the appellant‑Bank yet, under the directions of the learned Banking Tribunal, a fresh statement of account was filed. The learned Banking Tribunal finding that the two entries amounting to Rs.7.851 and Rs.375 are not in accordance with law, proceeded to deduct the said total amount of Rs.8.246 and passed a decree for the recovery of Rs.1.54,557 against the respondent, thus, he declined to award a sum of Rs.8.246 to the appellant‑Bank vide judgment and decree, dated 12‑1‑1995, hence, the present appeal.

3. Despite the service of notice, nobody has entered appearance to defend the appeal despite various calls made thus, the respondent is proceeded ex parte.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that a sum of Rs.8,246 was rightly included in the statement of accounts, the appellant‑Bank is entitled to claim the said amount from the respondent, and the same has illegally been declined by the then learned Banking Tribunal, therefore to that extent the decree may be modified.

5. We have examined the statement of accounts and find that the alleged loan amount of Rs.1,34.500 was advanced to the respondent on 5‑1‑1988 and immediately thereafter a sum of Rs.7,871 has been debited to the account of the respondent as a return charges. The Bank has failed to produce on record any document showing that the Bank is entitled to recover this amount.

6. Upon the examination of the record, we do not find any document filed, by the appellant‑Bank, whereby the respondent has undertaken to pay this amount to the appellant‑Bank. Even the loan agreement does not authorize the appellant‑Bank to debit this amount, more so when there is no other document on record which will go to show that actually the appellant/Bank is entitled to recover the said amount. We feel that the said amount has illegally been debited by the appellant‑Bank in the account of the respondent while, admittedly, there is no contract between the parties about the charging of said amount. The appellant‑Bank has included the said amount in the statement of accounts without any legal justification and the learned Banking Tribunal after finding that the said amount lacks legal backing, has rightly deducted the aforenoted amount from the suit amount and decreed rest of the amount in favour of the appellant‑Bank.

7. So far as the other amount of Rs.375 is concerned it has shown to be insurance charges. The appellant‑Bank has not produced any document on record to show that whether such an amount has been paid by the appellant- Bank as premium to the insurance company. Even no receipt showing the payment of the said amount to the insurance company has been brought on record.

8. We have examined the impugned judgment and find that while deducting the unauthorized entries from the statement of accounts, the learned then Banking Tribunal did not commit any illegality. We are of the considered view that no legal infirmity can be clothed with the impugned judgment and decree which is otherwise legal. unexceptionable and does not call for any interference by this Court.

9. The upshot of the above discussion is that we do not find any merits in this appeal, thus, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./A‑478/L Appeal dismissed.