JUDGMEN MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J. - Through the institution of the present Constitutional petition, the petitioner-Bank has called in s dated 30.7.1997 and 8.10.1997 with the prayer that the same may be set aside.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that a forced LIM facility was allowed to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and on their failure to re-pay the said amount, a suit for recovery of Rs.
1,16,400/- was filed by the petitioner- Bank against the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 before the Special Judge Banking, Lahore, which was decreed in favour of the petitioner-Bank vide judgment and decree dated 15.2.1982. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 filed an appeal (R.F.A. No. 25 of 1982) before this Court. The writ petition then narrated that during the pendency of the said appeal, respondent No. 2, addressed a letter dated 1.6.1997, to the petitioner-Bank intimating that the raw material had expired and also undertook to pay the entire decretal amount of Rs. 1,16,000/- in lump sum, provided other charges are waived. The petitioner accepted the request, agreed to effect compromise, and thus write-of a sum of Rs. 1,39,483/- outstanding against respondent No. 2, which was accepted by the said respondent vide letter dated 19.1.1989. In view of the compromise, afore-noted appeal was disposed of by this Court on 5.2.1989. It has been stated in the petition that on 2.4.1990, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 filed an application before the Banking Court, seeking direction to the petitioner-Bank to produce the pledged goods or to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- which application was replied to by the petitioner-Bank pointing out about the compromise and the facts of writing-of a sum of Rs. 1,39,483/-. On 30.7.1997 the learned Banking Court directed the petitioner to deliver the medicines given as security to the said respondents. Through another order dated 8.10.1997, the learned Banking Court further directed the petitioner to release the pledged stocks of Heparine Injectable to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 or to pay the equivalent amount to them, hence the present writ petition. Office has reported that respondents have been served through P.C. Cards for today, but nobody has entered appearance on their behalf, thus, respondents are proceeded ex-parte.
3. Learned counsel has contended that pursuant to a letter written by the respondent No. 2, a compromise was effected, whereby, the substantial amount was written-of, a compromise was effected and the appeal filed by the respondents was decided, In view of the above, learned counsel has submitted that the impugned orders have been passed by the learned Banking Court in complete oblivion of the facts and record and law on the subject.
4. I have examined the letter dated 1.6.1987 written by the respondent No. 3, wherein, it has specifically been admitted that the raw material, 'has since expired and is of no use of us' and the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 undertook to pay a sum of Rs. 1,16,400/- in lump sum. In response to that the petitioner-Bank addressed a letter dated 5.8.1989, wherein, it was communicated to respondent No. 3 that the Bank has waived the remaining accrued interest of Rs. 1,39,483/- for the period of 1.1.1982 till date. Pursuant to the above arrangement, R.F.A. No. 25 of 1982 was disposed of by this Court on 5.2.1989 in the presence of learned counsel of both the parties, It is evident from the afore-mentioned order that the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 paid the outstanding amount to the Bank and that 'drum of medicines' will be returned by the Bank to the petitioners. Consequently to the above, it appears that the said drum of medicine was delivered to the respondents on 5.1.1993 as is evident from the order dated 8.10.1997, passed by the learned Banking Court.
5. In view of the above narration, it is thus clear that the matter was compromised between the parties which was finalised and brought to the notice of this Court while disposing of appeal filed by the respondents. Subsequently, drum of medicines was returned to the petitioner, thus, the undertaking given by the petitioner-Bank before this Court on 5.2.1989 was completely discharged and fulfilled. I am of the view that with the delivering of drum of medicines on 5.1.1993, the matter stood concluded and there was nothing left to be decided and the application filed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 was fructified.
6. I have examined both the orders passed by the Banking Court, whereby, the petitioner-Bank was directed to return the pledged goods, which appears to have been passed in complete oblivion of the record of the case and the previous orders itself passed by the learned Court especially the order dated 5.2.1989, passed by this Court, In these circumstances, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law and I am inclined to exercise my Constitutional jurisdiction in the matter.
7. In view of the above reasons and discussions, the present writ petition stands accepted and the impugned orders dated 30.7.1997 and 8.10,1997 are hereby declared to be illegal, without lawful authority and having no legal effect with no order as to costs.