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.
Regular First Appeal No.104 of 1982, decided on 28th April, 1987.
---S.6--Recovery of loan--Pendente lite interest--Appellant-plaintiff's suit for recovery of outstanding dues decreed by Trial Court with pendente lite interest to be paid by respondent-defendant--Trial Court, having discretion to allow or disallow pendente lite interest, not exercising discretion in arbitrary manner--Interference declined by High Court with order of Trial Court.
Ayaz Hassan for Appellant.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 28th April, 1987.
--On the respondents' confession of judgment the learned Special Court (Banking), Lahore, decreed the appellant's suit for recovery of the outstanding amount of loan against the respondents. The facility of paying the judgment debt by monthly instalments vas given to the respondents. They were directed to pay hendente lite interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum and post decision interest at the rate of 13 per cent per annum till the liquidation of their liability. In case of commission of default in making payment of two instalments during a year the whole of the decretal amount was to be recoverable in lump sum. The appellant has come up in appeal against the decision of the learned trial Court in so for as it allowed the respondents to pay the decretal amount in instalments and pendente lite interest at the rate of Rs.5.00 per cent per annum. The appellant desires that the respondents should pay pendente lite interest at the contracted rate of Rs.14.00 per cent per annum as also the entire decretal amount in lump sum.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant says that since the respondents defaulted in paying two instalments during a year the entire decretal amount has become payable in lump sum. His only grievance left is that the pendente lite interest should be at the rate of Rs.14.00 per cent. The learned trial Court was not obliged to order pendente lite interest at the contracted rate; it had the discretion to allow interest at the rate of 5 per cent and even it could have gone to the extent of disallowing pendente lite interest. The exercise of discretion used by the learned Court in matter of fixing the pendente lite interest at 5 per cent per annum is not shown to be in any manner arbitrary. Therefore, its order of fixing payment of pendente lite interest at 5 per cent per annum does not demand any interference. The appeal is left with no force and is dismissed leaving the appellant to bear its own costs.
M.Y.H./U-6/L Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer