ORDER  SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Present:

Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah 

Mr. Justice Muhammad JunaidGhaffar

I.A. No.04 of 2015.

__________________________________________________________________

Date                      Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. For order on CMA No.213/15.

2. For Katchapeshi.

3. For order on CMA No.214/15.

----------

04.09.2015.

Mr. Salahuddin Khan Gandapur, Advocate for the Appellant.

                                      ----------

SAJJAD ALI SHAH J.- The appellant, through this appeal, has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Modarbas Tribunal in M-Suit No.10/2010, whereby, the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.47,01,050/- with cost of funds from the date of default of the suit till realization.

 2.      Briefly, the respondents (Modaraba Company) initiated recovery proceedings against the appellant through M-Suit No.No.10/2010, seeking recovery of Rs.51,85,850/-. During pendency of the suit an agreement was arrived at between the appellant as well as respondent (Modaraba Company), whereby, the appellant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.47,01,050/- within 18 months and till then the recovery suit was agreed to be kept pending, however, the appellant failed to honour the rescheduled payment leading to decree for the stated amount.

3.       Mr. Salahuddin Khan Gandapur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, initially contended that since there was a rescheduling, therefore, the Court could not have passed the impugned judgment, however, the contention does not appear to be correct as even in the rescheduling it was agreed that in case the appellant committed two defaults in payment of Modaraba money, the respondent (Modaraba Company) would be at liberty to pursue and press the recovery suit, which was kept pending. Since the appellant defaulted in payment, therefore, suit was pressed which ultimately was decreed.Mr.Salahuddin says that at-least notice be issued so that a little concession by way of instalments could be granted to the appellant for payment of its liability.

4.  We are afraid that such concession cannot be granted by the Appellate Court, however, if such request is made by the appellant before the Executing Court, that may be considered sympathetically and in accordance with law. The appeal is dismissed in limine alongwith the listed applications.

                                      JUDGE

                                                                             JUDGE

Ayaz