' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.-A suit for recovery of Rs.8,26,951 instituted by the appellant-Bank against the respondents/defendants was disposed of by the learned Banking Tribunal, Faisalabad on 17- 10-1995 decreeing the claim of the bank partially which judgment has been appealed against by the plaintiff-Bank through this regular first appeal.
2. The material on the record has been perused and considered.
3. In reply to the show-cause notice, though the availing of the financial facility of Rs.5 Lacs was not denied yet it was pleaded that a sum of Rs.3,47,400 had already been deposited by the respondent/defendants towards the liquidation of liability and, that they were ready to pay the balance amount including accumulated contractual mark-up. It was thus, that the learned Chairman Banking Tribunal on consideration of the material on the record declined to decree the suit as a whole and refused to grant liquidated damages taking the view that the appellant-Bank had failed to call upon the defendants/ respondents to clear the outstanding liability before the institution of the suit. The suit was eventually decreed "to the extent of Rs.3,64,888 after excluding the amount deposited by the defendants in their account and the liquidated damages included in the borrowers accounts, in favour of the plaintiff-Bank as against the defendants jointly and severally with costs." In the facts and circumstances of the case we do not find that the plaintiff- Bank was justified in this case to claim liquidated damages from the respondents. Law as to the liquidated damages is well-settled in the precedents i.e. Habib Bank Ltd. v. Messrs Farooq Compost Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. And 4 others 1993 M LD 1571; Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited, Faisalabad v.
Messrs Asisha Garments through Proprietor and 2 others 2001 M LD 1955; Saudi-Pak Industrial and Agricultural Investment Company (Pvt.) Limited, Islamabad v. Mohib Textile Mills Limited Lahore and 3 others 2002 CLD 1170 and National Development Finance Corporation v. Messrs Millrock Quarring (Pvt.) Ltd. And 7 others 2002 CLD 1382.
' In view of the above, we do not find that any illegality was committed by the learned Banking Tribunal in the case. The appeal, therefore, is bereft of any merit. It is dismissed. No order as to costs.