' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The facts, on the basis of Which this appeal was admitted to regular hearing have been noted in the order dated 10-9-2002. For completeness, the relevant part of the said order is reproduced as Aden-- "This appeal impugns the order dated 18-6-2002 passed by the learned Banking Court No,II, Lahore.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the appellant is entitled to incentive scheme dated 20-4-2002 issued by the respondent-Bank and duly advertised in daily The Jang' on 22-5- 2002. According to the learned counsel, although the amount of the decree passed against the appellant is in excess of Rs.5 million, the appellant availed three separate facilities by way of demand finance, transport finance and running finance respectively. Each of these facilities is for a sum less than Rs.5 million, because the demand finance was for Rs.4,400,000, the transport finance was Rs.3,177,000 and the running finance was for a sum of Rs.1,500,000.
3. Learned counsel states that on account of the express condition contained in paragraph at Serial No,4 of the Incentive Scheme, each facility was to be taken separately for the purposes of determining entitlement under the said scheme. For purposes of ready reference, paragraph at Serial No,4 of the Scheme is reproduced:-
4. If a client has more than one account and he wishes to avail this incentive, all his accounts having overdue outstanding principal up to Rs.5,00 M. In Doubtful/Loss Category would qualify for this Scheme.'
5. The learned Banking Court has, however, held that the aggregate amount of the appellant's liability is to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the appellant's eligibility to the incentive scheme.
2. On the date the appeal was admitted to hearing i.e. 10-9-2002, the appellants were granted interim relief staying auction of their properties subject to deposit of Rs.90,00,000 with the respondent-Bank within 30 days from the date of the said order. The order-sheet shows that subsequently the appellant sought extensions from time to time in the thirty-day period allowed to them for making payment of the sum of Rs.90,00,000. Extensions were allowed but the appellants failed to make the payment despite undertakings given on their behalf by their learned counsel.
The mala fide and contumacious conduct of the appellants has been noted in the order dated 29- 10-2002.
3. Today learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has argued, firstly, that the provisions of any incentive scheme do not have any relevance in execution proceedings as a decree validly passed by the Appellate Court is to be executed by the Executing Court in accordance with the terms of the decree itself. According to learned counsel, the Executing Court has no power to go behind the decree or to modify it on the basis of any incentive scheme, which may have been issued by the respondent-Bank. Secondly, it is contended that the appellants have not even paid a single rupee although the decree against them was passed on 15-1-1995 for a sum of Rs.1,36,70,824.64. On this basis, it is argued by learned counsel for the Bank that the appellants are not even entitled to claim the benefit of the incentive scheme which, as a condition precedent, required a borrower to deposit the amount required under the incentive scheme within the time period stipulated therein.
4. The contentions of learned counsel for the respondent-Bank are well-founded. Learned counsel for the appellants was not in a position to controvert the same by reference to any legal provision.
He merely reiterated his contentions that the appellants were entitled to the benefits of the incentive scheme and sought further time to deposit the sum of Rs.90,00,000. As we are in agreement with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Bank noted above, we find no merit in this appeal, which is, therefore, dismissed.