M. IQBAL FASIH vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a defendant-debtor against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court, which had affirmed the decree passed in favor of the respondent bank for a sum of Rs. 993.30. The core legal question concerns whether leave to appeal should be granted where the petitioner admits liability for the original debt but contends that the suit was barred by limitation and challenges the award of interest or penalty. The Supreme Court held that since the liability to pay the original amount is admitted and involves the wrongful appropriation of public money, the discretionary jurisdiction of the court will not be exercised to assist the petitioner on the plea of limitation. Furthermore, the court held that the inclusion of interest or penalty in the decree suffered from no legal defect. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will decline to grant leave to appeal under its discretionary jurisdiction to a debtor who admits liability for public funds, notwithstanding technical pleas of limitation or challenges to ancillary interest.
- Will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal based on a plea of limitation where the petitioner admits liability for public money?
- Can a debtor challenge the inclusion of interest or penalty in a decree when the underlying liability is not denied?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant-debtor against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court. The respondent's suit was decreed against the petitioner. The petitioner's appeal and civil revision having been dismissed, he has now sought leave to appeal.
2. ' The amount involved was Rs,993.30. Learned counsel frankly stated that the liability regarding the original amount due from the petitioner is not denied. He, however, vehemently contended that the suit was barred by limitation. He also contended that the petitioner should not have been burdened with any amount in addition to the original amount due. In other words, he argued that in any case it could not have been awarded in favour of the respondent.
3. The liability to pay the original amount not having been denied, we would not bless the wrongful appropriation by the petitioner of public money which belonged to the respondent, by granting leave to appeal; which falls within the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the plea of limitation before this Court at this stage in this context is of no help to the petitioner for seeking leave to appeal.
4. Regarding the question of interest/penalty we would not grant leave to appeal. It cannot at all be argued that when the suit was filed against the petitioner in 1978 or when the decree was passed against him in 1982, the interest penalty could not be made a part of the decree. Be that as it may, the High Court's judgment, as it is, cannot be treated as having suffered from any legal defect in this behalf when it was passed on 3-12-1983. For all these reasons, leave to appeal is refused as it is not a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal.