Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 607 of 1979, decided on 11th August, 1981.

(On appeal from the Judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 16‑4‑1979 in R.S.A. No.42/63).

‑‑‑Art. 185 (3)‑‑Suit for recovery‑‑High Court giving cogent reasons for differing from views of lower Court and pointing out omission or misreading of evidence on its part‑‑Petitioner unable to take exception to points made by High Court‑‑Interference with view taken by High Court uncalled for‑‑Leave refused.

‑‑‑O. XXXVII‑‑Recovery‑‑Adjustment‑‑Amount deposited by petitioner against loan taken by him from respondent Bank through process of Martial Law‑‑Adjustment, held, could be given by Executing Court for Trial Court was concerned merely with fixation of amount of liability and not adjustment of amount which was to take place later.

Sardar Ata Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 11th August, 1981.

The Lahore Central Co‑operative Bank Ltd. filed a suit for recovery of Rs.13,125‑7‑9 against the defendant /petitioner as an outstanding loan on his part. The suit and first appeal of the Bank were dismissed by the learned Civil Judge and the learned District Judge on 3‑10‑1960 and 6‑I1‑1962 respectively.

2. The plaintiff/Bank filed a second appeal being Regular Second Appeal No.42 of 1963 which was accepted by the High Court vide its judgment, dated 16‑4‑1979, whereby the suit was decreed against the defendant /petitioner, who has now come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.

3. Learned counsel argued that the case of his client was that the Bank had the goods of the petitioner in hypothecation with it, and their value and price should be adjusted against the claim of the Bank and if so adjusted, the petitioner would not be liable to pay anything. However, the finding of the High Court is that the aforesaid goods were in fact taken away by the petitioner himself, and therefore, the bank could not be asked to give any adjustment, for the same. It is argued that on this point the finding of the first two Courts was against the bank and the High Court erred in law in displacing the aforesaid finding in second appeal without any legal ground. The contention has no merit. The High Court has given cogent reasons for differeing from the lower Courts and has also pointed out the omission or misreading of evidence on their part. Learned counsel could not take exception to the points made by the High Court in that respect and in these circumstances, it is not possible for us to interfere with the High Court's view on the subject under discussion. We hold accordingly.

4. It was then argued that the petitioner had already paid a sum of Rs.11,000 to the bank through the process of Martial Law, which could be deducted from the decretal amount herein. The High Court was of the view that this aspect can be brought by the petitioner to the notice of the executing Court or agency because in the present suit, the Court was concerned merely with fixing the amount of the liability and not the adjustment of that amount which took place later. This is quite correct because the stage for showing adjustment would arise when the bank demands in execution or otherwise anything over and above that which it has already received through the process of Martial Law.

5. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed hereby.

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.