Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 284 of 1986, decided on 11th October, 1986.
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 21‑1‑1986 passed in R.F.A. No. 184 of 1984)
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Suit for recovery of bank loan decreed on basis of admission made by defendant's counsel‑‑Decree upheld in second appeal‑‑Order impugned on ground that inference about admission of Bank's claim drawn from counsel's statement made before Special Court, was not correct‑‑Words used in statement being clear enough, Supreme Court disagreed with different interpretation made before it and refused leave to appeal.
Noor Muhammad Chandia, Advocate Supreme Court and Hameed Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑ Record for Petitioners.
M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 11th October, 1986.
Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 21‑1‑1986 of the Lahore High Court; whereby the appellant's Regular Second Appeal arising out of a Bank loan case, was dismissed.
The respondent Bank instituted against the petitioner a suit for the recovery of Rs.7,85,063.93 before Special Court Basking, Lahore. It was decreed mainly on the basis that 'the counsel for the defendants in more than one statements have admitted the claim of the bank as correct and suggested that it be recovered by the sale of the pledged stocks in the custody of the bank. In this way the application, pledged contest the suit was not pressed, rather it was withdrawn'. It main to mentioned here that earlier to the aforementioned statements the petitioner‑defendant had made an application for permission to contest the suit.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the plea as was urged before the High Court, namely, that no such state same admitting the claim of the bank was made before the learned Statement Court, Banking. In order to appreciate the point it is necessai0ecial reproduce the statement of the petitioner's counsel made on 10‑11-1984 which was relied upon by the High Court. It reads as follows:--
< --[if gte vml 1]>
The correctness of the language used in the afore quoted stat is not challenged by the learned counsel. He, however, has vehemenently contested the inference of an admission of plaintiffs claim, drawn by the learned two Courts below. The learned counsel himself was the defendant's counsel before the Special Court Banking and he says the he never intended by the afore quoted statement to convey than that defendant was admitting the claim of the bank and that it the intention to press the application for contesting the suit.
We do not agree with him. The words 'Jis Ko Farokhat Ke Raqam Bank Kay Mutalba Ki Minha Ker Li Jaey' in the statement 'r Kay learned counsel before the Special Court Banking are clear enough the covey the intention that the claim of the bank may be satisfied by the sale of the pledged goods. If there was any intention to contest the suit there was no occasion for the defendant to agree to the Bank s appropriating against its claim the sale proceeds of the pledged goods. We, therefore, are unable to agree with the plea of the learned counsel. On the question of interpretation of the statement made by him before the learned trial Court.
That being so, there is no force in this petition and the same is dismissed.
M.I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer