--Ss. 9 & 22--Suit for recovery--Decreed--Appreciation debit dispute--Execution of partnership--Entitlement for appreciation-----------

 PLJ 2023 Lahore (Note) 11

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (XLVI of 2001)--

----Ss. 9 & 22--Suit for recovery--Decreed--Appreciation debit dispute--Execution of partnership--Entitlement for appreciation--Appreciation debit is permissible under terms of assignment and partnership-executed between parties and various clauses referred to appreciation to be due to appellant--Question still remains as to how much appreciation appellant is entitled to--This requires evidence to be taken down and for purpose leave ought to have been granted--Banking Court shall proceed to frame an issue and after recording of evidence Banking Court shall proceed to pass order on this limited question--Appeal allowed. [Para 2] A, B & C

Kh. Muhammad Ajmal, Advocate for Appellant.

Mr. Muhammad Akram Awan, Advocate for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 9.3.2022.

 PLJ 2023 Lahore (Note) 11
Present: Shahid Karim and Muzamil Akhtar Shabir, JJ.
HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION--Appellant
versus
GHULAM SHABIR--Respondent
R.F.A. No. 1167 of 2016, decided on 9.3.2022.

Order

This is an appeal under Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 and challenges the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2016 passed by the Judge Banking Court, Sargodha.

2. We have heard the parties. The dispute relates to appreciation debit of Rs. 174059/-. This was denied by the Banking Court while passing the decree although the entire case of the appellant was admitted to be due. We also find that appreciation debit is permissible under the terms of assignment and partnership-executed between the parties and various clauses referred to appreciation to be due to the appellant. To that extent we disagree with the findings of the Banking Court. However, the question still remains as to how much appreciation the appellant is entitled to. This requires evidence to be taken down and for the purpose leave ought to have been granted. The Banking Court went wrong in passing the decree which is liable to be set aside. This appeal is allowed. Consequently, the application for leave to defend too is allowed on the question as to what precise is the amount of appreciation debit to which the appellant is entitled to. For the purpose the Banking Court shall proceed to frame an issue and after recording of evidence the Banking Court shall proceed to pass the order on this limited question.

(Y.A.)  Appeal allowed