Messrs UNISAM ENTERPRISES and others vs THE BANK OF PUNJAB
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court concerning the recovery of a decretal amount of Rs. 7,97,094, which had been decreed by the Banking Court No. II, Lahore. The petitioners, who had obtained a loan from the respondent bank and mortgaged property as security, contested the total outstanding liability, arguing that the bank's claim was inflated and that they had made partial repayments. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in upholding the Banking Court's decree, which was based on the bank's statement of account and documented loan advances. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the controversy was concluded by a finding of fact regarding the actual loan amount and the outstanding liability. The Court affirmed that the bank's statement of account carried a presumption of correctness, which the petitioners failed to rebut with evidence. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact by lower courts, supported by cogent evidence and documentation, are not open to interference by the Supreme Court in leave to appeal proceedings.
- Does a statement of account furnished by a bank carry a presumption of correctness in recovery proceedings?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding loan liability in leave to appeal proceedings?
- Is a decree based on documented loan advances and mark-up calculations sustainable when the debtor fails to produce evidence to rebut the bank's statement of account?
' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 14- 4-1998, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.F.A. No,235 of 1997.
2. The dispute herein relates to recovery of decretal amount- of Rs,7,97,094 pursuant to the decree passed by the Banking Court No,II, Lahore vide judgment dated 8-7-1997.
3. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner applied for loan through petitioner No,2 from the respondent-bank and petitioner No,3 stood surety as guarantor. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner executed charge-documents etc. And mortgaged the property in favour of the respondent-bank through registered deed dated 27-6-1990. The petitioner took the plea before the High Court that the respondent-bank put in an inflated claim of Rs,7,97,094 whereas only a sum of Rs,3,50,000 was advanced as loan in the first instance and, later on, another amount of Rs,50,000 was advanced as loan, making total liability of Rs,4,00,000 out of which Rs,15,000 had already been returned.
4. Mr. M. Anwar Ghuman, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that in addition to this, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs,175,000.
5. The learned Division Bench of the High Court repelled the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners in the following terms:-- "Learned trial Court, after perusing the record found that the amount actually advanced as loan Was not Rs,4,00,000 but Rs,5,85,000. On that basis , after adding the due mark-up amount, the total outstanding liability of the appellants was worked at Rs,7,97,094 and suit was decreed accordingly.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we find no merit in this appeal. The claim of the respondent bank is based on documents execution whereof, with the exception of memo. Of deposit of title deeds, stood admitted by the appellants. Presumption of correctness was attached to the statement of account furnished by the respondent. Neither before the Banking Court nor before us it was pleaded by the appellants that any amount paid by them towards liquidation of loan liability had been omitted in the said statement of account. No evidence was produced to rebut the claim of the respondent bank."
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. The controversy raised herein is concluded by a finding of fact, which is not open to challenge in these proceedings. The impugned judgment of the High Court is based on cogent reasons warranting no interference.
7. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave declined.
Cited by 5 cases
- Dr. HASSAN FATIMA Versus PAKISTAN RED CRESCENT SOCIETY 2026 SCMR 1303
- MOHAMMAD ZIAFAT Versus TARIQ NAWAZ KHAN TAREEN 2026 SCMR 1132
- Messrs ALKARAM TRAVELS (PVT.) LTD. and others vs EAST WEST INSURANCE 2001 SCMR 688
- Messrs AL-KARAM TRAVELS (PVT.) LTD. And Other vs EAST WEST INSURANCE K.L.R. 2001 S.C. 128
- Messrs AL-KARAM TRAVELS (PVT.) LTD. And Other vs EAST WEST INSURANCE K.L.R. 2001 S.C. 128