MAUVLI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---On 30-6-1997 the respondent filed a suit against the appellants for recovery of Rs.3,52,011. According to the plaint the appellant No.1 requested respondent to open a Letter of Credit for import of Urea Moulding compound from Italy. The request was granted and LC was established on 30-5-1993 in the sum of US $ 18450. Appellant No.2 stood guarantee for repayment of amount on demand. The goods were imported and arrived in Pakistan and used by the appellants. However, the appellant had not repaid the said amount. A decree in the suit amount was accordingly prayed for. The appellants were served in accordance with law. They put in appearance and sought leave to defend by filing an application. This application was resisted.
Learned Judge Banking Court-IV, Lahore, dismissed the said application and consequently decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated '13-4-1998.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that since the goods were of perishable nature and perished, the respondent-Bank could not claim the suit amount from the appellant. It has also been sought to be argued that the default is attributable to the respondent-Bank. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, argues that the respondent-Bank did perform its part and made payment to the corresponding Bank in Italy and goods were received in Pakistan. According to him the delay was not attributable to the respondent-Bank and in terms of the L/C the amount was payable on demand by the appellants.
3. We have gone through the records of the learned trial Court with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. We have also examined the several documents appended by the appellants with this R.F.A. Now so far as the instrument in question is concerned, which is admittedly Annexure A to the R.F.A., the appellants were bound as principal and surety respectively to pay the said amount to the respondent-Bank upon demand. There is no denial that the amount was not paid to the Bank in Italy and that the goods arrived in Pakistan and ultimately reached Lahore. Dry Port. The appellants have also appended with this R.F.A. the copy of Writ Petition No.3010 of 1994 and order dated 30-4-1994 of this Court.
A reading of the said writ petition which was filed by the appellant No.2 through the present learned counsel for the appellants and said order squarely shows that the goods were not released because of tripartite dispute between the appellants inter se and Custom Department who claimed that the goods belong to one Attiq-ur-Rehman who owes money to the Department and goods were not released as the said money was not paid. The writ petition was decided by consent whereby the appellant No.2 agreed that the goods be released to the appellant No. 1. It may further be stated here that the learned counsel for the said Department consented to the said arrangement on the basis of letter addressed by the respondent-Bank requesting that the goods be released to appellant No. 1.
4. Having thus examined the record, we do not find any force in this R.F.A. which is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. Record of the trial Court be refitted back immediately.