Find a Lawyer

Civil appeal No. 54 of 1975, in Civil. Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 189 of 1975, decided on 10th October 1975.

(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated the 21st November 1974, passed is Execution No. 3/L of 1974, in Civil Original No. 35 of 1961).

-----O. XXI, r. 58‑‑Respondent company admitting to have received sum in question from and to have issued a receipt to, petitioner appellant but placing it in suspense mount for reason of its being paid by petitioner's husband, also a debtor of respondent‑Company in his own right‑Held Amount ought to have been adjusted against husband's debt, if such 1wsbaod a debtor, and amount if received on behalf of petitioner Ought to have been adjusted against her debt‑‑..Respondent- Company not acting fairly in keeping sum in suspense account‑Petitioner entitled to credit for amount in dispute‑Direction Issued accordingly.

Syed Jamsl Hussain Rizvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Ali Imam Naqvi,

Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

M. Z. Khalil, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.

Date of hearing ; 10th October 1975.

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J

.‑The dispute in this case relates to an amount of Rs. 30,000 which the petitioner claims she had paid by a cheque and received a stamped receipt for the same signed by the Chief Accountant of the respondent Muslim Insurance Company Ltd., on 10th August 1964. When this matter last came up for hearing the learned Advo cate‑on‑Record for the respondent‑Company was asked to obtain definite information regarding the payment of the said Rs. 30,000.

The learned Advocate‑or‑Record now appearing for the respondent Company admits that this amount was received and that a receipt for the same was issued in the name of the present petitioner. He, however, states that since he amount was paid by her husband who was also debtor of the respondent‑Company in his own right,

this amount was placed in a suspense account.

If the husband was a debtor then the amount should have been adjusted against his debt and on the other stand if the amount was received on behalf of the present petitioner then the amount should have been adjusted against her debt. We are, therefore, not satisfied that tits respondent‑Company has been acting fairly with the petitioner who is, to our opinion, entitled to credit for the paid amount of Rs. 30,000. This amount, we accordingly, direct should be adjusted by the respondent‑Company against the petitioner' dues.

Since this disposes of the matter completely, we treat this petition as an appeal, allow the same and direct that credit be given in the execution case No. 41 of 1974 in Civil Original No. 35 of 1961 for the said amount of Rs. 30,000 to the petitioner. There will, however, be no order as to costs

Petition treated as appeal and allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.