SMOOTH PHARMACEUTICALS (PVT.) and others,-- Petitioners, vs BANK OF
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court which upheld a decree passed by a Banking Court in favor of a respondent-Bank for the recovery of a decretal amount. The core legal question was whether the Banking Court erred in passing the decree based on documents the petitioners alleged were signed in blank. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioners, in their application for leave to appear and defend the suit, had failed to deny their liability to satisfy the outstanding claim. Consequently, the Court held that the non-disputing of liability was sufficient to conclude that the decree was based on admissible documents, rendering the petitioners' contention regarding blank papers meritless. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners had already commenced partial satisfaction of the decretal amount by paying 50% of the sum. Finding no point of public importance involved, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the impugned judgment and dismissed the petition.
- Does the failure to deny liability in an application for leave to appear and defend a suit justify the passing of a decree by a Banking Court?
- Should the Supreme Court interfere in a banking recovery matter where the petitioner has already commenced partial satisfaction of the decree and no point of public importance is involved?
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition calls in question judgment, dated 9th December, 2003 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.F.A. No,64 of 2003.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that respondent-Bank obtained decree in its favour for the recovery of sum of rs,.22,54,002/97 along with costs and cost of funds as certified by State Bank of Pakistan from time to time from the date of default i.e, 14th December, 2001 till realization of the decretal amount. In case of their failure to satisfy the decree, the decree shall be executed according to law. Appeal filed by the petitioners, before the High Court has been dismissed vide impugned judgment. As such instant petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the claim of the respondent-Bank was based on blank papers, which were not admissible under the law, therefore, decree could have not been passed by the Banking Court in favour of respondent/decree-holder.
4. It may be noted that petitioners, filed application for permission to appear and defend the suit wherein liability to satisfy outstanding claim was not denied by the petitioners,. However, permission was denied to the petitioners, to appear and defend the suit and decree was passed on accepting the claim of respondent-Bank against petitioners,. We are of the firm view that non- disputing of liability by the petitioners, is sufficient to draw conclusion that, decree has been passed on admissible documents and contention of learned counsel looses its IA importance.
5. Learned counsel further contended that 50% decretal amount has been paid by the petitioners,.
In view of the his such statement we are of the opinion that when petitioners, have started satisfying the decree, this B Court is not bound to interfere in impugned judgment particularly in view of the fact that no point of public importance is involved in this case.
' Thus for the foregoing reason petition is dismissed.