' CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.-The brief facts out of which the present appeal arises are that respondent- Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs,538,125.26 before the Banking Court on 25-10-1979.The appellant filed an application for leave to defend before the Banking Court. The Banking Court granted the leave to the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant filed written statement and controverted the allegations levelled in the plaint. Out of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the damage and loss caused to the defendants in the disposal of the pledged goods was due to negligence and imprudence of the Bank? OPD
(2) Relief.
' Learned Banking Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 11-11-1993. Hence this appeal.
2. Learned counsel of the appellant submits that letter of credit was opened by the respondent- Bank on the request of the appellants on 9-3-1977 amounting to Rs,214,783. The appellants had deposited 50% of the said amount to the respondent-Bank as is evident from para.3 of the plaint.
The remaining 50% of the said amount was deposited by the appellants with the respondent-Bank at the time of clearance of the goods as is evident from para.5 of the plaint. The appellants had deposited Rs,62 500 at the time of partial release of goods as is evident from para. 6 of the plaint.
The appellants filed an application before the Banking Court for release of goods in question which was accepted by the learned Banking Court, vide order dated 29-6-1980 but the respondent-Bank malafidely did not allow the appellant to sell the goods in question. The appellants filed another application for the said purpose which was also accepted by the learned Banking Court vide order dated 30-11-1980. Subsequently, the Banking Court appointed Mr. Abdul Qayyum, Advocate as Local Commissioner to sell the goods in question vide order dated 8-3-1981. The Local Commissioner sold the goods in question for consideration of Rs,321,656. Thereafter, the Local Commission submitted his report Exh.D.1 before the Banking Court. Learned Banking Court was erred in law to decree the suit without adverting to the report of the Local Commissioner. He further submits that Banking Court was erred in law to give finding against the appellants in para.7 of the impugned judgment that appellants have failed to show any negligence on the part of the respondent-Bank/plaintiff about the causing of damage to the goods. The aforesaid finding of the Banking Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law in view of section 151 of the Contract Act. He further submits that finding of the Banking Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law on the ground that it is the duty of the Bank to prove that the goods were in safe custody, in view of the aforesaid section of the Contract Act, and the law laid down by the superior Courts. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments:--
(1) The Lahore Central Cooperative Bank Ltd v. M/s. Haji Allah Dad Fida Hussain Merchants (1987 CLC 1435).
(2) M/s. Mastersons v. M/s. Ebrahim Enterprises (1988 CLC 1381), and
(3) Pakistan v. Habib Insurance Company (1991 CLC 1270).
' He further submits that impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law that the report of the Commission was not considered and taken note of by the learned Banking Court at the time of passing the decree against the appellants. He further submits that appellants proved on record that appellants sustained loss on account of inaction of the respondent-Bank by producing sufficient evidence on record. Learned Banking Court was erred in law to dismiss the suit without adverting to the evidence of D.W.4 who had categorically stated that value of the goods of the appellants was Rs,600,000 instead of Rs,300,000. Learned counsel of the respondent-Bank submits that learned Banking Court passed the impugned judgment and decree after appreciation of evidence on record in accordance with law. The appellants accepted the liabilities as is evident from clause 7 of letter of credit. He further submits that appellants accepted liabilities as is evident from Exh.P.W.1/8. He further submits that D.W.3 Naseer-ud-Din admitted that he had kept the goods on the request of Mr. S. A. Ahmad, Director Industries. He further submits that goods were not sold by the appellants in time on account of slump in the market. The respondent-Bank came to know that the goods were lying under the control of D.W.3. The Bank immediately directed him not to release the goods to the appellants without permission of the Bank as is evident from Exhs.D.5 and D.6. He summed up his arguments that appellants did not raise any counterclaim in written statement as is evident from grounds of the written statement, coupled with the fact that non- consideration of the report of the Local Commissioner did not prejudice the case of the appellants as the report did not reveal at all qua the damage sustained by the appellants. The Local Commissioner was only appointed by the Banking Court to sell the goods in question under the direction of the Court.
3. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record ourselves. It is pertinent to mention here that the grounds urged before us were not agitated or taken by the appellants in the written statement filed by the appellants before the Banking Court. It is settled principle of law that parties are bound by their pleadings. The impugned judgment also did not reveal that the aforesaid pleas were raised before the Banking Court It is settled principle of law that nobody should be allowed to get the benefit of his own misdeeds. The appellants are not allowed to raise fresh pleas at the appellate stage. In arriving to this conclusion we are fortified by John Brownie's case (AIR 1940 Privy Council 219) and Ashfaq ur Rehman's case (PLD 1971 SC 766). It is pertinent to mention her that in view of clause 7 of letter of credit read with Exh.D.14, Exh.D.15, Exh.D.16, Exh.D.17 and Exh.D.18 read with statement of D.W.3 Naseer-ud-Din Qadir show that appellants are responsible to repay the amount claimed by the respondent-Bank and the appellants failed to point out any sufficient evidence on record to show negligence on the part of respondent-Bank. It is pertinent to mention here that appellants admitted the liability in Exh.P.W.1/8. In this view of he matter the judgments cited by learned counsel of the appellant are distinguished on facts and law. It is settled principle of law that each and every case is to be decided on its own peculiar circumstances. In this view of the matter we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment. However, the learned Banking Court was erred in law not to adjust the amount received by selling the goods in question by the Local Commissioner. The decree is modified to the extent that the sale proceeds received to the tune of Rs,321,656 be adjusted and minus from the decretal amount.
' In view of what has been discussed above, the appeal is partly accepted to the extent mentioned above.