' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, the appellant, through the filing of the present appeal, under section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, has called in question judgment and decree dated 14-3-1996, whereby the then learned Banking Tribunal although partly decreed appellant's suit to the extent of Rs.3,19,065, yet declined to award a sum of Rs.1,15,334 being the amount of liquidated damages and Rs.51,173, the amount of agreed return.
2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant-Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs.9,99,612, together with costs, liquidated damages and the return, against the respondents, before the learned Banking Tribunal (since defunct). Pursuant to the receipt of notices, as provided under section 6(2) of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, the respondents filed the reply to the show-cause notices and the then learned Banking Tribunal, ultimately, after finding that a sum of Rs.5,14,000 has already been deposited by the respondents, proceeded to partly decree the suit, to the extent of Rs.3,19,065, in favour of the appellant Bank, yet declined to award a sum of Rs.1,15,374, the amount of liquidated damages and Rs.51,173, the amount of agreed return, vide judgment and decree dated 14-3-1996, hence the present appeal.
3. Despite the service of notices, none has entered appearance to represent the respondents, thus they are proceeded ex parte.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Bank has contended that although the appellant Bank was entitled for the award of liquidated damages and the amount of agreed return, yet the same have illegally been declined by the learned Banking Tribunal, as such according to the learned counsel, the impugned judgment and decree need modification.
5. So far as, liquidated damages are concerned, the appellant Bank is not entitled to recover the amount of liquidated damages, as per the principle laid down in the judgment reported as Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. Faisalabad v. Messrs Aisha Garments (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 the amount of alleged agreed return, the same is equally without force. It is settled law and also discernible from the basic concept of Islamic Mode of financing that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellant-Bank is not entitled to further claim the amount of return, moreso, when the same has already been debited to the account of the respondents. Furthermore, the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 also does not empower the Banking Tribunal to award the amount of return, hence the contention of the learned counsel is repelled.
7. In view of the argument raised by the learned counsel, we have examined the impugned judgment and find that the same 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 same 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 D with no order as to costs.