HABIB BANK LTD., BAHAWALPUR vs Syed FAKAR HUSSAIN SHAH and 7 others
This matter concerns two civil appeals filed by Habib Bank Ltd. against the dismissal of its suits for the recovery of loan amounts. The trial court and the first appellate court concurrently dismissed the suits, finding that the bank failed to prove its case. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bank's civil revisions in limine but, in its order, directed the initiation of criminal proceedings against specific bank witnesses, citing the production of forged documents and false testimony. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in ordering criminal proceedings based on observations that were not supported by the findings of the lower appellate court. The Supreme Court held that the first appellate court merely concluded the bank failed to prove its case, rather than making a definitive finding of forgery or perjury. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals regarding the recovery suits but set aside the High Court's observations and directions regarding the initiation of criminal proceedings, ruling them unjustified in the circumstances.
- Can a High Court order the initiation of criminal proceedings against witnesses based on observations not supported by the findings of the lower appellate court?
- Is a finding that a party failed to prove its case equivalent to a finding of forgery or perjury by its witnesses?
' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.---This order will dispose of two Civil Appeals by leave bearing No, 1038/90 and 1039/90.
1. The appellant filed two suits for recovery of the amounts alleged to have been advanced as loan to the respondents. After the trial, the suits were dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Bahawalpur vide judgment and decree dated 22-3-1982. The appellant filed two appeals which were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur vide judgments and decrees dated 4-6-1985.
The appellant then filed two civil revisions in the Lahore High Court, both of which were dismissed in limine by a learned Judge who further observed that "Before parting with the judgment I feel constrained to observe that despite its fmding that the forged documents were produced in evidence by the petitioner-Bank and the witnesses namely Fakhar-e-Alam, Safdar Salim, Asad Raza Gardezi and Mukhtar All had not given true evidence, the trial Court had not taken any action against them. The office will open separate file on criminal side, original side and place the same before me for necessary orders". This is vide order dated 25-6-1988. Hence these appeals.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and perused the record with his assistance. The alleged mortgage deeds were registered in Shorkot on 16-7-1971 and account with five rupees was opened at Bahawalpur the same day and that very day payment was made.
Thereafter, no transaction took place. Accounts were closed by the end of in the final year on 1-1- 1972. Suits were filed on 15-4-1976. There is nothing on the record how all this happened at two places same day and nothing happened thereafter for nearly five years. No good ground has been shown to interfere in the adverse concurrent findings of facts by the three Courts. However, the observations quoted above are not borne out from the finding of the learned first appellant _ Court as it was observed that "the execution of documents Exh.P-2 and Exh.P-3 is therefore, not proved to the hilt". In other words, the learned first appellate Court only held that the appellant had failed to prove its case against the respondents. In the circumstances of the case we do not think that it was justifiable to order opening of separate files on criminal side against the persons named in aforequoted observations of the learned High Court.
3. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed but the observations aforequoted are set aside.
Since nobody has appeared to oppose the appeal there shall be no order as to costs.