1969 PLP 19 (SCMR)

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan Lahore, in a Regular First Appeal. The said appeal arose out of a suit filed by the respondent Bank, through its Manager, against the petitioners and the second arid third respondents, for the recovery of a total sum of Rs. 91,696‑4‑

0. The trial Court framed as many as 15 issues but dismissed the suit upon the finding that the then Manager of the respondent Bank, who had filed the plaint, had no valid authority to do so and, therefore, the suit was incompetently filed. The trial Court was in favour of the Bank on all the other issues. The High Court allowed the respondent‑Bank to lead addi tional evidence in the appeal on the question of the competency of the suit and came to the conclusion that the suit was compe tently filed. After finding that the suit was competent, the High Court also dealt with the appeal on merits and ultimately, reversing the trial Court's order, passed a decree in favour of the respondent Bank, for RS. 91,696‑4‑0, with future interest at 6 per cent. per annum against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and further held that the defendant No. 3, the purchaser of certain cotton bales from the defendant No. 1, was also liable to render accounts to the Bank as the cotton bales were pledged with the Bank. It may be mentioned here that the defendant No. 2 in the suit was an Ex‑Manager of the plaintiff‑Bank itself who had been joined as a defendant upon the allegation that he had acted in collusion with defendant No. 1 in making advances to him. Several important questions of law arose for decision in the suit relating to (i) as to whether additional evidence could be admitted at the appellate stage under Order XLT, rule 27 to make good a lacuna in the evidence, (ii) whether the suit was barred by limitation on the ground that the account between the parties was not an open, mutual and current account, and (iii) whether the suit was competent as against the defendant No. 3 between whom and the respondent‑Bank there was no privity of contract. The value of the subject‑matter in dispute in the suit and in this appeal is also considerable. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that this is a fit case in which leave to appeal should be granted to examine the above and other questions of law raised in the petition for special leave to appeal. Security Rs. 1000. The ad interim stay already granted will in the first instance continue in opera tion for a period of one month only. Thereafter it will continue to operate only if the petitioner furnishes a Bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the executing Court in the sum of Rs. 91,000 within the said period of one month. Leave granted.