' Through the institution of the preserit Constitutional Petition, Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan has called in question order dated 30-10-1997, whereby the Banking Tribunal consigned to record the execution petition filed by the petitioner.
2. Brief facts as narrated in the present writ petition are that the suit for recovery of Rs,2,86,669, filed by the petitioner-Bank against the respondents was decreed ex parte on 25-7-1993 alongwith costs and mark-up. Pursuant to the above the petitioner-Bank filed an execution application for the realization of the said amount, but the respondents filed an application seeking setting aside of said ex parte judgment and decree, which application was accepted and aforenoted ex parte decree was set-aside vide order dated 3-1-1995. However, after the transfer of the case, Chairman Banking Tribunal again passed an ex parte decree on 24-1-1996 and, thereupon the decree-holder again filed an execution application on the basis of the latest judgment and decree dated 24-1- 1996. During the execution proceedings the judgment-debtor produced the receipts with regard to deposit of the amount of Rs,2,29,608 (Rs,1,70,000 and Rs,59,605) deposited by them under Prime Minister's Package Scheme. The learned Chairman Banking Tribunal, on 30-10-1996, consigned the execution petition to record being satisfied, which order has been called in question by the petitioner through the present petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that the impugned order dated 30-10-1996 has been passed by the Banking Tribunal in complete oblivion of the facts on record and the law on subject, inasmuch as the learned Court failed to consider that a considerable amount is yet to be recovered from the respondents. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned order.
4. It is evident from the impugned order that a sum of Rs,2,29,608 was deposited by the judgment- debtor on 19-10-1994 in liquidation of the outstanding amount as per the decree, which fact has not even been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Order dated 16-10-1996 shows that the learned counsel stated before the learned Banking Tribunal that the judgment-debtors have deposited the total amount on 19-10-1994. Admittedly, order dated 16-10-1996 was passed in the presence of both the learned counsel, wherein it was observed that the outstanding amount, against the judgment-debtors, as on 19-10-1994 was Rs,2,27,742, which amount has been paid, as far back as on 19-10-1994. Further admittedly, order dated 19-10-1994, whereby the liability of the judgment-debtors was determined and subsequent order dated 16-10-1996 was not called in question by the petitioner-Bank before any higher forum even uptil now, as such, the Bank is bound by the terms of the said orders and now cannot agitate against the said orders which have attained finality.
5. I have minutely examined the impugned order, which does not suffer from any legal infirmity and has been passed, while taking into consideration all the relevant facts, documents on record and the law on the subject. The learned Court has taken pains to calculate the amounts and has dealt with the matter mathematically and then came to the conclusion that the respondents are entitled for the deduction of the amount, which they have deposited out of the principal amount. Impugned order is well-reasoned and I am not inclined to interfere in the findings rendered by the said Court, which are unexceptionable.
6. In view of the above discussions, the writ petition is devoid of any force and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.