' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---Through the filing of the present appeal, under section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 (since repealed), the appellant-Bank has partially called in question judgment and decree dated 29-10-1996, whereby the learned Banking Tribunal (since defunct) partially decreed the appellant's suit to the extent of Rs.13,82,418.
2. Facts relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that the appellant-Bank/plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.15,23,931, allegedly due against the predecessorin-interest of the present respondents, namely, Sher Muhammad, before the then learned Banking Tribunal. Initially an ex parte decree was passed against the respondents, yet on an application filed by the respondents the same was set aside. Subsequently the reply to the show-cause notice was filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein although they admitted the availing of loan facility yet denied the claims Of the appellant-Bank with regard to the liquidated damages, future mark-up and other charges. The learned Banking Tribunal after hearing the parties, partially decreed the suit to the extent of Rs.13,82,418 with costs, against the respondents, vide judgment and decree dated 29-10-1996, hence, the present appeal.
3. This is represented case, but none has entered appearance to defend this appeal, hence, the respondents are proceeded ex parte.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Bank has contended that although the appellant-Bank was entitled for the awarding of liquidated damages and the future mark-up. Yet the same have illegally been declined by the then learned Banking Tribunal, as such, according to the learned counsel, the impugned judgment needs modification.
5. So far as, liquidated damages are concerned, the appellant-Bank is not entitled to recover the amount of liquidated damages, as per principle laid down in the judgment reported as Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. Faisalabad v. Messrs Aisha Garments and others 2001 M LD 1955, wherein it has been held that the Bank is not entitled to recover the amount of liquidated damages. In the above perspective, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and decree is in consonance with the law laid down by this Court, thus, not open to exception.
6. So far as the contention raised by the learned counsel regarding future mark-up, the same is equally without force. It is settled law and is also discernible from the basic concept of Islamic mode of financing that in the facts and circumstances of present case, Bank is not entitled to claim future mark-up. Furthermore, Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, also, does not empower the Banking Tribunal to award the future mark-up, hence, the contention of the learned counsel is repelled.
7. In view of the arguments raised by the learned counsel, we have examined the impugned judgment and find that it does not suffer from any legal infirmity and is not only in accordance with the record of the case, but also in consonance with the law on the subject, thus, the impugned judgment does not require any interference by this Court, hence the same is maintained.
8. Upshot of the above discussion is that the present appeal is devoid of any merits, thus, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.