Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 95 of 1984, decided on 7th February, 1984.

(From the order dated 11‑12‑1.983 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, passed in Writ Petition No. 79‑83/BWP).

‑‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979), S. 6‑Suit for recovery of loan advanced by Bank on basis of promissory note‑‑Party granted leave by Court to defend suit conditionally upon depositing suit amount in cash‑‑Order of deposit not complied with by party and suit decreed by Court‑Question of severity of condition imposed by trial Court in granting leave to defend, held, a matter falling within discretion of Court and no illegality in exercise of such discretion was committed by Court in circumstances No case having been made out for interference, petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

M. A. Farani, Advocate Supreme Court with M. A. Qureshi, Advocate- on‑Record for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 7th February, 1984.

This petition arises from a suit brought on 19‑6‑1983 by the respondent, i. e., United Bank Limited, under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979) against the petitioners for recovery of Rs. 57,219.40 being the loan advanced on the basis of a promissory note. The petitioners sought leave to defend asserting that they had paid off the entire liability. They produced no receipt in support of the discharge of such liability but the trial Court in order to enable them "to elaborate their point in the Court" allowed them leave to defend the suit conditionally upon their depositing the suit amount in cash in Court by 22‑9‑1983. The order of deposit not having been complied with, the suit was decreed on 25‑9‑1983. The petitioners' First Appeal before the High Court having been dismissed in limine, they have sought leave to appeal.

2. The main contention raised is as to the jurisdiction of the Special Court. It is urged that the suit for claim for an amount below rupees one lac is not triable by that Court. This was controverted by learned counsel for the Bank by reference to the amending Ordinance II of 1983 notified in the Gazette on and effective from 30‑1‑1983, which being a date prior to the institution of the suit it was applicable to the case. By the amendment, the jurisdiction of the Special Court was extended to cover outstanding amount of loan not exceeding one million rupees. There being no minimum limit, the suit was within jurisdiction of the Special Court. As regards the severity of the condition imposed by the trial Court in granting leave to defend, the matter falls within the discretion of that Court and considering the circumstance of the case, we are satisfied that no illegality in the exercise of such discretion has been committed. No case is made out for interference. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

M. Z. M.

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.