CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.---Brief facts out of which the present appeal arises are that respondent No.2 secured a loan amounting to Rs.7.2 million in the year 1995 and agreement was also executed between respondent No.2 and the appellant-bank. The appellant-Bank has sanctioned the loan in favour of respondent No.2 after completing the legal formalities and after securing guarantees from respondents Nos.3 and 4. Respondent No.2 failed to repay the loan in terms of the agreement to the appellant. The appellant-Bank being aggrieved filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.7,312,580 before the Banking Court, Lahore. The Banking Court issued show-cause notices to the respondents, thereafter decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 2-6-1998. The learned Banking Court had not allowed the mark-up for the cushion period of 210 days to the appellant.
According to the appellant, the appellant was entitled to the mark-up for the said period in terms of the agreement.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the agreement was expired on 31-12-1996 and the appellant has filed a suit for the recovery before the Banking Court on 17-3-1998. The Banking Court erred in law not to grant the mark-up of the period from 1-1-1997 to 17-3-1998. He further submits that the Banking Court erred in law not to grant the said relief to the appellant in violation of the terms agreed between the parties. He relied upon Circular No.32, dated 26-2-1995, issued by the State Bank of Pakistan and the law laid down in Rahim Bux and others v. The State PLD 1998 Karachi 119.
3. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record ourselves. Sit is pertinent to mention here that respondent No.2 secured loan from the appellant in the year 1995 and the appellant has. filed the suit against the respondents on 17-3- 1998, under the provisions of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997. It is better and appropriate to reproduce section 15 of Act No.XV of 1997 to resolve the present controversy between the parties:-- "15. Decree.--- The decree shall provide for interest or mark-up, as the case may be, on the judgment-debt from the date of institution of suit to payment--"
Bare reading of the said section reveals that the appellant is entitled to the mark-up from the date of institution of the suit to payment. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant did not file the suit immediately after the cut off date, i.e. 31-12-1996, mentioned in the agreement, therefore, the appellant-bank is responsible not to agitate the matter before the Banking Court well in time. It is settled principle of law that no body should be allowed to get the benefits of his misdeeds. It is also settled principle of law that nobody can be penalized by the inaction of the public functionaries according to the law laid down by this Court in Ahmad Latif Qureshi v. Controller of Examination, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and another PLD 1994 Lahore 3. It is pertinent to mention here that the decree has been passed by the Banking Court under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, which is in consonance with section 15 of the said Act, therefore, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment, which is upheld and the appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs.