INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN vs PAKISTAN BELTING (PVT.)
The plaintiff-appellant Bank filed a recovery suit based on a Finance Agreement dated 16-9-1991, which was decreed by the trial court for a lesser sum than claimed, with costs of funds granted from the date of the institution of the suit rather than the alleged date of default. The Bank filed an appeal seeking costs of funds from the date of default, 9-9-1992. The Lahore High Court observed that the Bank remained indolent for ten years before filing the suit, and the respondent company could not be penalized for the Bank's prolonged inaction. The Court held that awarding costs of funds from the date of institution of the suit was justified under the circumstances, particularly since the decree already stood satisfied. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the Bank was directed to release the respondent company's security documents within ten days.
- Whether a plaintiff bank is entitled to costs of funds from the date of default when it remained indolent for a prolonged period before filing the recovery suit?
- Can a respondent company be penalized for the inaction and delay of the appellant bank in instituting legal proceedings?
- Whether an appeal against a money decree is maintainable when the underlying decree already stands satisfied?
ORDER
' The plaintiff/appellant-Bank filed a suit on 20-1-2003 for recovery of Rs,2,37,10620.12 on the basis of Finance Agreement, dated 16-9-1991. The said suit was decreed vide judgment/decree, dated 4th May, 2005, for recovery of Rs,63,49,562.00 with costs and costs of fund from the date of institution of the suit till realization. This appeal has been filed against the aforementioned decree claiming the funds from the date of the default which according to the learned counsel is 9-9-1992.
' The appeal is controverted by the Director of the respondent-Company.
2. We have gone through the impugned judgment, perused the record and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. The Finance Agreement is dated 16th September, 1991, which according to the learned counsel for the appellant, expired on 9-9-1992 and which allegedly is the date of default. The Bank remained indolent for ten years and filed the suit on 20-1-2003. There is no legal justification for awarding the costs of funds from the alleged date of default i,e, 9-9-1992. The respondent could not be penalized for the inaction of the appellant-Bank.
The trial Court has already granted the costs of fund from the date of institution of the suit. It is admitted by the learned counsel that the decree already stands satisfied. This appeal has no merit and is dismissed. Aftab Arshad Sheikh, Director of the respondent-Company states that the security documents are not being released by the appellant-Bank. The appellant-Bank is directed to release the security documents of the respondent-Company within ten days from the date of this order.
Cited by 6 cases
- Rana Muhammad Ausaf vs House Building Finance Company Limited 2023 CLD 554
- HABIB BANK LIMITED vs DYNASEL LTD. and 7 others 2018 CLD 1256
- GHULAM JAFFAR PHULPOTO vs Messrs ALLIED BANK LIMITED and another 2015 CLD 1416
- HABIB BANK LIMITED through Authorized Attorneys vs PAK POLY PRODUCTS 2013 CLD 1661
- ZARAI TARIQIATI BANK LIMITED through Branch Manager vs HASSAN AFTAB 2009 CLD 36
- ZARAI TARIQIATI BANK LTD. through its Branch Manager vs HASSAN AFTAB 2009 PLJ Lahore 879