Khalid Ghias Asad vs Agricultural Development Bank
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the Banking Court's decreeing of the respondent Bank's recovery suit for Rs. 3,73,357/- and dismissed the petitioner's application for leave to appear and defend as time-barred. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the Bank's Incentive Scheme despite failing to repay the entire principal amount as required by the scheme. The Supreme Court held that the plea pertained to the factual realm and the petitioner failed to meet the sine qua non of the Incentive Scheme, namely the repayment of the entire principal amount. The Court laid down the principle that factual contentions regarding loan repayments and incentive schemes, unaccompanied by any question of law of public importance, do not warrant interference under leave to appeal, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
- Is a debtor entitled to the benefit of a Bank's Incentive Scheme without repaying the entire principal amount?
- Does a plea pertaining purely to the factual realm regarding loan repayment raise a question of law of public importance?
FALAK SHER, J.- Tending to assail judgment and decree of Judge Banking Court-II, Gujranwala dated 5.3.2002 decreeing the respondent Bank's suit for recovery of Rs.3,73,357/- turning down petitioner's application seeking leave to appear and defend being barred by time RFA 125/2003 was preferred before the Lahore High Court contending that the entire loan amount alongwith interest has been repaid in addition to seeking refuge under the Bank's Incentive Scheme which was turned down by a learned Division Bench vide the impugned judgment dated 27.3.2003 keeping in view the admitted execution of the loan documents and not entitled to the banked upon Incentive Scheme for failure to meet its sine qua non viz. Repayment of the entire principal amount.
2. Hence the captioned petition for leave to appeal reiterating the latter plea. With which we are not impressed because the urged plea admittedly pertaining to the factual realm stands repelled, while no question of law of public importance has been canvassed. Resultantly, the same fails and is hereby dismissed leave declined.