ORDER  SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Present:

Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah 

Mr. Justice Muhammad JunaidGhaffar

I.A. No.03 of 2014.

__________________________________________________________________

Date                      Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. For orders on Office objection.

2. For Katcha peshi.

3. For order on CMA No.97/2014.

----------

04.09.2015.

Mr. Emadul Hasan, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. Hamid Idress, Advocate for the Respondent.

                                      ----------

SAJJAD ALI SHAH J.- Through this appeal, appellant/judgment debtor has impugned the Judgment and Decree dated 03.12.2013 passed in Suit No.304/2011 by the Banking Court No.II, Karachi, directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.62,94,450/- alongwith future cost of funds from the date of expiry of facility till realization of decretal amount.

 2.      Briefly, the respondent Leasing Company has leased out certain equipments, as detailed in prayer clause “c” in the decree, upon execution of the lease agreement against payment of specified rentals. Since the appellant failed to pay the rentals, consequently, the Respondent Leasing Company initiated recovery proceedings and the Banking Court, after hearing the parties, decreed the suit by directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.62,94,450/- with future cost of fund as well as cost of the suit. Counsel for the appellant says that the appellant initially had paid 35 timely instalments and thereafter it failed to pay remaining 25 instalments. Per counsel no sooner the appellant failed to pay the balance instalment, it was incumbent upon the leasing Company to have repossessed leasing equipments and to sell the same in order to mitigate losses and if this would have been done, the liability of the appellant would have been substantially reduced.

3.       We are afraid that proposition propounded before us by the counsel has neither any legal sanctity nor moral. It is not incumbent upon the leasing company to repossess the leasing equipments on non-payment of the instalments though such course is available but with the option that in case such course is not availed then the Leasing Company is always entitled to the lease rentals as agreed between the parties. We have also enquired from learned counsel as to whether any notice of termination of lease was issued by the appellant and the counsel fairly conceded that no such notice was issued by the appellant.

4. In the facts and circumstances, no case for interference in appeal by this Court is made out. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed.

                                      JUDGE

                                                         JUDGE

Ayaz