' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.--Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, appellant, through the filing of the present appeal, under section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 (since repealed), has partially challenged the judgment and decree dated 1-8-1995, whereby the then learned Banking Tribunal (since defunct) although partly decreed the appellant's suit, for the recovery to the extent of Rs.31,747, yet declined to award the amount of liquidated damages and future mark- up.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are, that the appellant filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.2,16,896, against the respondent, before the then Banking Tribunal. Initially an ex parte decree was passed, however, subsequently on an application filed by the respondent the said decree was set aside. The respondent thereafter filed reply to the show-cause notice, wherein although initial loan facility was admitted, yet the respondent denied the claims of the appellant relating to liquidated damages, future mark-up and other charges. The learned Banking Court, after hearing the parties and upon consideration of the available record, came to the conclusion that the appellant is not entitled for liquidated damages and future mark-up and sum of Rs.1,49,000 was already deposited by the respondent, which fact was not denied by the appellant-Bank, proceeded to pass a decree for the recovery of Rs.31,747 thereby declining to award the relief of liquidated damages and future mark-up to the appellant-Bank, vide judgment and decree dated 1-8-1995, hence, the present appeal.
3. Nobody has come forward to represent the respondent, thus, he is 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 inference 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.