GHULAM QADIR KHAN And 12 Others vs THE MULTAN CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 5-12-1979, which dismissed a constitutional petition concerning the recovery of a loan obtained from the Multan Central Co-operative Bank Limited. The core legal question involved the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain challenges regarding loan recovery proceedings after an award had been made and the principal liability satisfied. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioners' liability had been determined, the loan amount repaid, and the challenge raised only technical questions regarding civil court jurisdiction without disputing the underlying debt, the case was not a fit one for the discretionary exercise of granting leave to appeal. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, noting that the High Court's judgment did not suffer from any prima facie legal infirmity.
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted merely to examine technical questions of jurisdiction when the underlying financial liability has been satisfied?
- Does the discretionary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court warrant interference in concurrent findings regarding loan recovery and civil court jurisdiction?
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 5-12-1979 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Constitutional petition arising out of a case of recovery of loan obtained from Multan Central Co-operative Bank Limited (respondent), was dismissed on point of jurisdiction of the Civil Court wherein the matter had been agitated.
2. According to the facts briefly stated by the learned counsel after protracted proceedings the award for recovery of the money was made against the petitioners. In appeal they succeeded in getting the amount reduced from nearly Rs.9 Lacs to Rs.3,87,320 plus costs amounting to Rs.2,500. It is stated that the recovery has already been effected. The proceedings were sought to be challenged before the Civil Court which in the hierarchy having held that it had no jurisdiction, the matter has now been agitated for grant of leave to appeal.
3. Along with the Writ Petition out of which the present petition arises another Writ Petition relating to the recovery of the amount through attachment and sale was also filed and the same was dismissed. Thus, in so far as the question of determination of the liability of the petitioners and the repayment of loans is concerned the matter is no more before us. The points sought to be agitated are merely technical relating to the jurisdictional aspect of the case. Nothing was said before the High Court indicating that the petitioners were not liable to pay the loan. The jurisdiction of this Court to grant leave to appeal is highly discretionary. In the above circumstances of this case, therefore, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal merely to examine the technical points. It may be remarked that the High Court judgment on those questions also does not prima facie suffer from any infirmity. Be that as it may, for the afore stated reason that it is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal, the same is declined and the petition is dismissed.