Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 5794 of 1981, decided on 12th December, 19

‑‑ O. XXXVII, r. 3 (2) read with Banking Companies (Reco very of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979) and Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑Recovery of loans‑Leave to defend suit‑Leave granted subject to condition of deposit of entire suit amount being made within one month‑Such order within jurisdic tion and discretion of Court‑Held, case not fit for interference in writ jurisdiction.

Syed Waqar Hussain Naqvi for Petitioners.

Date of hearing : 12th Dccember, 1981.

The Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan has filed a civil suit for the recovery of Rs.75,31,237.40 against the petitioner and M/s. Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. The principal debtor is M/s. Sutlej Cotton Mills Limi ted while the position of the petitioner is that of a guarantor, The suit is pending before a Special Court established under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance. 1979. The Special Court is following the procedure laid down in Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The petitioner applied before the Special Court for leave to defend the suit. The leave was granted subject to the condition that the petitioner should deposit into the Court the entire suit amount within one month. A Through this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the imposition of the said condition. It is not disputed that under rule 3 (2) of Order XXXVII the Special Court could while, granting leave to defend the suit, impose the impugned condition. It is thus not a case where the order pf the Special Court suffers from any error of jurisdiction. The grievance of the petitioner is that it is a banking institution and it cannot allow such a large amount as is involved in this suit to be tied up in an unproductive deposit and so long as the amount remains in the Court it will not bring any return for the bank. It is further stated that in case the suit is ulti mately decreed it will not be difficult for the Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan to affect the recovery of the suit amount.

3. I do not think it is a fit case for interference in writ jurisdiction by this Court particularly when the order made by the learned Special, Court is with jurisdiction and well within its discretion. The petitioner, if so advised, can move the Special Court to place the amount in a bank where it earns interest during the pendency of the suit. With these observations this writ petition is dismissed in limine.

M.Y.H. Petition dismissed .

Find a Lawyer Near You

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