' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---Instant appeal assails the order dated 21-11-2002, passed by the learned Judge Banking Court-IV, Lahore, whereby the appellant's application under section 47 read with section 151, C.P.C. Was dismissed.
2. Precisely, the relevant facts are that the respondent-Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs,1,73,007 for the unpaid dues of Credit Card Facility. The appellant in spite of service did not appear before the Banking Court and consequently, the respondent's suit was decreed ex parte on 29-5-2001. The appellant, thereafter, moved an application under section 12 of the Ordinance (No, XLVI of 2001), which was dismissed by the Banking Court and the order thus passed, was affirmed by this Court.
The appellant filed a civil petition before the Honourable Supreme Court which was dismissed on 2-7-2002, with the observation that if petitioner feels that he is not liable to pay the decretal amount or that certain amount credited by him has not been adjusted by the Bank, he may agitate the same before the Executing Court. The appellant under the observations by the Honourable Supreme Court, moved an application under section 47 read with section 151, C.P.C. Before the Banking Court which was dismissed on 29-5-2001. He thereafter, filed the appeal in hand. The respondent in response to no -ice by this Court has appeared and was represented through its counsel.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the patios and have examined the record appended herewith. Stance of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Banking Court did not comply with the direction by the Honourable Supreme Court, has no legal/factual value because the Banking Court in the impugned order, mainly dilated upon justifying that the appellant is liable to pay the suit amount. Deliberations made by the Banking Court, accomplished the task assigned to the Banking Court vide order dated 2-7-2002.
4. We have also examined the statement of account and have compared the same with the payments made by the appellant during the period 1-8-1998 to 4-8-2000, as per details in his application and found no discrepancy. Similarly, the dispute regarding service charges, reflected in the statement of account, was correctly concluded by the Banking Court. There is no cavil with the proposition that in Credit Card Cases the Banks do not charge mark-up on the amount due and in place thereof, service fee is charged at the rate of 3% per month on each retail transaction, from its date till the statement is made. The Banking Court correctly returned findings that the service fee is chargeable only after lapse of timeframe, for repayment of facility availed and its rate is less than the costs of Funds as per section 3 of the Ordinance (ibid). Scan of record and the impugned order revealed that the Banking Court rightly concluded the lis, in spite of the fact that it could not go beyond the decree passed, yet the directions by the Honourable Supreme Court were accomplished in their letter and spirit. We could not be persuaded to take a different view to the one taken in the impugned order. We find that no legal defect was pointed out for interference by this Court.
5. For the reasons noted above, no case for indulgence on this appeal was made out and consequently, the instant appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs.