' AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.--The appellant has challenged the order dated 14-5-2001 passed by the trial Court on the application of the respondent whereby the respondent was allowed to avail the benefit of the incentive scheme notified by the State Bank of Pakistan.
2. The facts as it appears from the pleadings of the parties are that the appellant filed suit against the respondent before the Banking Court which was decreed ex parte on 4-10-1999 and the respondent was directed to make payment to the appellant pursuant to the decree to the tune of Rs.4,54,087 with costs. During the pendency of execution proceedings an amount of Rs.2,28,029 was paid by the respondent.
3. The State Bank of Pakistan in the year 1997 notified a relief package for 'defaulters' which relief package was not availed by the respondent for want of requisite conditions. However, when the remaining decretal amount was payable, the State Bank of Pakistan again notified another incentive. Package on 17-10-2000, which incentive package according to the appellant's counsel was available up to 31-12-2000. The relevant condition of the said incentive package is reproduced hereunder:-- "(c) The defaulters whose cases have been decreed in bank's favour, decrees are executed or those which are yet pending will also be eligible for relief provided that they pay additional charges of litigation incurred by the Bank."
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid condition the respondent made an application to the trial Court on 14- 5-2001 in order to avail benefit of the incentive scheme. On the said application, the trial Court after hearing both the parties ordered the respondent to make payment of the instalment as provided under the terms of the incentive scheme on or before 19-5-2001. Learned counsel for the appellant appearing before the trial Court has conceded that on 14-5-2001 the scheme of State Bank of Pakistan notified on 17-10-2000 was in existence. It appears from the record that on 21-5-2001 after passing of the impugned order the respondent approached the Manager of the appellant who refused to accept the payment of instalment of Rs.38,500 which the respondent has made through Demand Draft. A Statement was filed by the Manager of the appellant before the trial Court on 28- 5-2001 in which he has stated that he will be preferring an appeal against the order dated 14-5- 2001 whereby the trial Court has extended the benefit of the incentive scheme to the respondent.
The issue involved in these proceedings revolves on this short point.
5. According to Haji Mukhtar Ahmed Bhatti, learned counsel for the appellant, the impugned order has deprived the appellant from an amount of Rs.3,12,340 which the respondent was liable to pay pursuant to decree dated 4-10-1999. He further submits that the incentive scheme package was only operative till 31-12-2000 but by the impugned order the benefit has been extended to the respondent after the lapse of stipulated time.
6. As against this, Mr. Aijaz Ali Hakro, learned counsel for the respondent, argued that he was within his rights to approach the trial Court as those persons against whom the decrees were granted were also entitled to avail the benefit of incentive scheme and the scheme was operative on the day when the application was made by the respondent to the trial Court.
7. We have heard the learned counsel and have gone through the record. Admittedly, under the original decree the respondent was liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,54,087 with costs and it is also an admitted position that the appellant has received an amount of Rs.2,28,029 towards part payment of the decretal amount when the balance amount was outstanding, the respondent approached the trial Court in order to avail the benefit of incentive scheme as his case was also covered under it. The trial Court on the basis of statement made by the counsel for the appellant appearing on 14- 5-2001 extended the benefit of the scheme to the respondent subject to his fulfilment of the condition laid down therein. The statement of the appellant's counsel, which has been incorporated by the trial Court, he has admitted that the incentive scheme was in existence on 14- 5-2001. When the respondent approached the Manager of the appellant with demand draft for payment of the instalment, the Manager refused to accept the same on 21-5-2001 and also filed a statement before the trial Court to the effect. The appellant and other scheduled banks are monitored and controlled by the State Bank of Pakistan and they are bound to show respect to the policies notified by the State Bank of Pakistan. In the present proceedings, the conduct of the appellant was unfair and the order of the trial Court passing the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. There is no justifiable reason to prefer the present appeal by the appellant impugning the order of the trial Court.
8. We, for the aforesaid reasons by our short order dated 23-9-2003, have dismissed the appeal alongwith the listed application. The respondent is directed to make the payment to the appellant in terms of the incentive scheme within two weeks from today.