HABIB BANK LIMITED vs MUHAMMAD NASIR HASAN
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute over a debt liability where the respondent initially contested the claim based on the bar of limitation. During the proceedings, the respondent voluntarily acknowledged the liability for the principal amount, effectively waiving the limitation defense. Consequently, the parties reached an informal consensus to resolve the matter. The core legal question concerned the respondent's liability for the principal debt and the accrued interest. The Court held that the ends of justice were best served by accepting the respondent's admission of liability. The judgment modified the lower court's decree, ordering the respondent to pay the principal amount within three months of the bank's communication of the exact sum. The issue regarding the payment of interest was remanded to the trial court for determination. The Court emphasized the importance of ethical conduct in litigation, citing Islamic principles regarding the moral obligation to acknowledge rightful debts regardless of procedural advantages gained through legal arguments.
- Can a party waive a limitation defense by voluntarily admitting to the principal debt during court proceedings?
- Is it appropriate for an appellate court to remand a case for the determination of interest when the principal debt is admitted by the respondent?
- Does the admission of liability for a principal amount render the issue of limitation moot?
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.---This appeal through leave of the Court for all practical terms needs to be disposed of on the basis of an informal understanding between the two sides.
2. ' During the arguments at one stage the respondent who remained present in person when the subject-matter of his liability to pay a very debt and the bar of limitation were being discussed, come out with a very courageous straightforward statement that there was no denial of liability so far as the principal amount is concerned, and further that he had made an offer even a year ago that he was ready to pay the same, but there remained a dispute on the question of payment of interest on account of the prevailing uncertainty about the legal position in that behalf. Thus the question of limitation no more remained to be resolved.
3. ' On this learned counsel for both the parties entered into meaningful discussion and came to the conclusion that ends of justice would be met if the principal amount is paid by the respondent within three months after the bank communicates the principal amount due and regarding the interest the case is remanded to the trial Court for determining the interest due. This informal consensus of opinion expressed by the two legal experts from both the sides is not only fair but also proper; as a basis for the decision in this case. We .
4. This appeal is partly allowed. The decree is modified to the extent that the principal amount shall be paid within three months after the bank communicates the actual principal amount due. And the case is remanded to the trial Court for deciding the question of interest after determining the actual amount due in that behalf. There shall be no order as to costs.
5. ' Before closing this order it needs to be noted with appreciation the conduct of the respondent in Court. While his counsel was strenuously arguing that his client was not liable to pay anything out of about 36 lacs of rupees the disputed amount, on account of the bar of limitation, the respondent stood up and stated that he had acknowledged the liability even a year ago and had offered to pay the principal amount. This happened immediately after a Court remark on the trend of arguments by his learned counsel to avoid the liability. It was to the effect as to what would have been the course of such proceedings in case the matter would have been decided by our Chief Guide in the administration of justice namely; the last of the Prophets, Muhammad (Peace be upon him). A Sunnah injunction (see No, 845 Sahih Al-Bukhari-ArabicEnglish, Vol. III, P.
523. Dr. Muhmmad Mohsin Khan, Islamic University Al-Madina Al Munawara, Kazi Publications, Lahore, Pakistan) relating to his advice to those litigants who win the case on the basis of better arguments but not on better merits. It was to the effect that he who wins knows better whether he had the right. If he had no right but won on better handling of the case on his side, he should return the benefit so gained (wrongly) otherwise he would be carrying fire with him, an indication towards hell. All this was observed, with a view to the culture of litigation then and now. It evoked a very positive response from the respondent. This shows the real ethos and culture of the ordinary litigant. How it can be popularised is a question for the Bench and the Bar, the public and the law- makers to ponder over.