' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---United Bank Limited, appellant/decree-holder, through the filing of the present appeal, has called in question judgment and preliminary decree dated 26-3-1996, whereby the then Special Court Banking passed a preliminary decree of Rs.75,000 along with simple interest at the rate of 14% per annum, with costs and expenses, from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the outstanding amount of loan.
2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.80,970, together with costs and future interest, against the respondents, alleging therein that their predecessor in interest, namely, Muhammad Ashraf obtained a loan facility of Rs.75,000, executed charge documents and as he could not liquidate the outstanding amount during his life time, therefore, the respondents Nos.2 to 6, being his legal heirs, are liable to pay the suit amount. It was the case of the appellant that although the predecessor in interest of the respondents made certain payments, yet now a sum of Rs.80,970 is due against the respondents. After the receipt of summons, only respondent No,2 filed an application for leave to appear and defend the suit, thereby admitting the availing of loan facility of Rs.75,000, however, pleading that the amounts deposited by her deceased husband has not been accounted for and the statement of accounts is incorrect. Ultimately, the Special Court Banking passed a preliminary decree, for the recovery of Rs.75,000 along with simple interest at the rate of 14% per annum, with costs and expenses, from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the outstanding amount of loan vide judgment and preliminary decree dated 26-3-1996, hence the present appeal.
3. Despite service, nobody has entered appearance to represent the respondents, thus they are proceeded ex parte.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that although the appellant-Bank was entitled for the decree of the suit amount i.e. Rs.80,970, yet the learned Banking Court passed a decree for the principal amount of Rs.75,000 without any legal justification, thus the impugned decree needs modification, so as to further include a sum of Rs.5,970. He has further added that the learned Judge has awarded the future interest from the date of the institution of the suit till the realization of the outstanding amount, whereas under the law the appellant-Bank was entitled for interest from the date of default till the realization of the outstanding amount.
5. After hearing the learned counsel of the appellant and upon the examination of the available record, we find that both the contentions raised by the learned counsel are misdirected, ill-founded and misconceived. As regards the first contention, it is true that the appellant-Bank initially filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.80,970, as on 31-12-1987, yet we find another statement of accounts on record, filed by the appellant-Bank, whereby, upon the payment of a sum of Rs.500, on 20-7-1988 and Rs.6,000 on 17-8-1995, the appellant-Bank, itself, reduced the suit amount from Rs.80,970 to Rs.74,470. In view whereof in fact at the time of the passing of the decree, the actual suit amount was Rs.74,470 and not Rs.80,970 as erroneously comprehended by the learned counsel. It appears that this contention has been raised in complete oblivion of the record of the case, which is nullified from the statement of accounts, itself filed by the appellant-Bank. The learned Special Banking Court has rightly passed. The decree for the recovery of Rs.75,000, which is even excess by Rs.530.
6. As regards the next contention of the learned counsel, section 8(2) of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, completely, negates the said plea of the learned counsel, which provides that the decree shall provide for interest or return, as the case may be, on the judgment debt from the date of institution of the suit till payment. In view of the aforenoted provision of law, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant-Bank to assert that the appellant- Bank is entitled to recover the interest from the date of default till the date of payment. The contention is hereby repelled.
7. In the above backdrop, we have examined the impugned judgment and find that the same is not only in accordance with the record of the case but also in consonance with the law on the subject and thus does not call for any interference by this Court, therefore, the same is hereby maintained.
8. Upshot of the above discussion is that the present appeal is devoid of any merits, thus the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.