MUHAMMAD NOOR vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an interim order passed by the Peshawar High Court in a Regular First Appeal arising from a suit filed under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The High Court had directed the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee equivalent to the decretal amount of Rs. 1,69,415 as a condition for the admission of the appeal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's exercise of discretion in requiring a bank guarantee rather than a cash deposit, or specifically the quantum of security, warranted interference by the appellate court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court acted within its statutory discretion. The Court affirmed that under Section 12(5) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, the normal condition for admitting an appeal is the deposit of the decretal amount in cash, though the Court retains discretion to accept other forms of security. The Supreme Court established that it will not normally interfere with the High Court's exercise of such discretion regarding the nature of security required for the admission of an appeal.
- Does the High Court have the discretion to accept security other than a cash deposit for the admission of an appeal under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion regarding the nature of security required for the admission of an appeal?
- Is a bank guarantee a valid form of security for the admission of an appeal under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Section 12(5), Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
' M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- This petition is directed against an interim order dated 13-2-1984 passed by the Peshawar High Court in the petitioner's Regular First Appeal from a decree passed against him in a suit instituted by the respondent-Bank under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans)
Ordinance, 1979. The order requires the petitioner to furnish security in the shape of bank guarantee equal in value to the decretal amount within three weeks. The decretal amount is Rs,1,69,415.
2. The grievance is that a security in the decretal amount would have sufficed and as such there was no justification to have called upon the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee. Subsection (5) of section 12 of the Ordinance lays down that "No appeal shall be admitted for hearing unless the appellant deposits in cash with the High Court an amount equivalent to the judgment-debtor, at the discretion of the High Court, furnished security equal in value to such amount". The normal condition for admission of an appeal, therefore, is deposit in cash the decretal amount though the Court has been given the discretion to require some other security in that amount. This Court would not normally interfere with the exercise of such discretion. Learned counsel urges, in this connection, that the decree was bad in law but that point has yet to be examined by the High Court, where the petitioner's appeal is pending. The case, therefore, does not merit interference.
The petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.