' In this suit for recovery of Rs,32,323,208 filed by Trust Leasing Corporation, a banking company against Lahore Medical Imaging (Pvt.) Limited and two others, the defendants have applied for leave to defend the suit vide P.L.A. No,108/B of 1998 which has been contested by the plaintiff.
2. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the defendants in support of application for leave to defend the suit is that in the plaint the plaintiff has claimed the lease rentals in respect of the period for which it has not yet become due.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has pointed out that only the lease rentals which are overdue have been claimed in addition to the principal amount. This contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is borne out by a perusal of paras.10 and 18 of the plaint wherein the details of the claim have been given.
4. The learned counsel for the defendants further submitted that penal charges have been imposed by the plaintiff. However, in the plaint there is no such demand made by the plaintiff.
Apart from overdue lease rentals, the plaintiff has claimed additional rentals on overdue payment which amounts to Rs,87,150. This rental has been claimed in terms of clause (11) of the Schedule annexed with the agreement between the parties to which no possible exception can be taken. No other ground having been urged, this application is found to be without any force and is accordingly dismissed.
5. As the defendants have failed to obtain leave to defend the suit, the averments contained in the plaint are deemed to be correct as ordained by Order 37(2) of C.P.C. And section 9(4) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997. Even otherwise the claim of the plaintiff is fully supported by the documents on the record, inter alia agreement between the parties and the statement of accounts.
' In view of what has been stated above, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed as prayed for with costs.
Suit decreed, 2000 C C 708 [Lahore] Before Malik Muhammad Qayyum, I NAYYAR INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive---Petitioner versus PUNJAR COOPERATIVE BOARD FOR LIQUIDATION through Chairman and another--Respondents Cooperative Petition No,193/C of 1999, decided on 22nd January, 2000. Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act (I of 1993)--- ----S. 11---Auction of property---Refund of earnest money--Petitioner was a successful bidder of an immovable property for which offers were invited by the Punjab Cooperative Board for liquidation---Earnest money was deposited by the petitioner, neither the offer was accepted by the Liquidation Board nor the earnest money was refunded--Contention raised by the Board was that petitioner failed to fulfil his commitment---Validity---No details of default committed by the petitioner were furnished to the Court--Receipt of earnest money was not denied and there was nothing on record to show that offer made by petitioner had even been accepted and the same was communicated to the petitioner---Board had no right to retain such money of the petitioner and as such was directed to refund the earnest money in circumstances. [p. 708] A Zahid Malik for Petitioner.
Kh. Muhammad Saeed for Respondents.
' According to the facts stated in this petition Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation had invited offers for sale of immovable property measuring 167 Kanals and 18 Marlas situate at Shahkot, District Sheikhupura. In response thereto the petitioner gave an offer of Rs,1,40,000 and deposited a sum of Rs,5 lacs as earnest money in the form of a pay order. That offer was, however, not accepted nor has the money deposited by the applicant been returned to him.
2. In the written reply filed by the respondent none of the pleas has been denied. On the other hand it has been admitted that the petitioner has deposited Rs,5 lacs as earnest money. It has been stated in para.7 of the reply that the petitioner has not fulfilled his offer, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief, However, details of default, committed by the petitioner, have not been furnished.
There is nothing on the record to show that the offer made by the petitioner had even been accepted and the acceptance communicated to the petitioner. In these circumstances, it is quite obvious that the respondents have no right to retain the earnest money.
' It is accordingly directed that the earnest money shall be refunded to the petitioner forthwith. The claim for interest/mark-up is, however, denied.