| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 4365 = 2026 SLD 4365 = 2026 SCP |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No.1481-L of 2019 Against the judgment dated 07.02.2019 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.F.A.470/2000
Presented By: Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar Justice Musarrat Hilali Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
For the Petitioner: Mr. Haq Nawaz Chattha, ASC For
Respondent-1: Mr. Muhammad Omar Saleem, ASC Date of Hearing: 01.06.2026
Civil Petition No.1481-L of 2019 Against the judgment dated 07.02.2019 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.F.A.470/2000
Presented By: Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar Justice Musarrat Hilali Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
For the Petitioner: Mr. Haq Nawaz Chattha, ASC For
Respondent-1: Mr. Muhammad Omar Saleem, ASC Date of Hearing: 01.06.2026
M/s. Crescent Spinning Mills Ltd. …Petitioner
VERSUS
Citibank N.A. 308 Upper Mall, Lahore and others …Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 152
Law: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997
Section: 15
Law: Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984
Section: 6
SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
(1) Section 6 of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 and Section 15 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 (2) Doctrines of “intra petita/infra petita/ultra petita” (3) Effect of repeal under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act (4) The purpose of Section 152 CPC is to correct typographical, mathematical, or clerical errors but not to alter the substratum of judgment.
SUMMARY;
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
(1) Section 6 of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 and Section 15 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 (2) Doctrines of “intra petita/infra petita/ultra petita” (3) Effect of repeal under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act (4) The purpose of Section 152 CPC is to correct typographical, mathematical, or clerical errors but not to alter the substratum of judgment.
SUMMARY;
Background
- The petitioners obtained financial facilities from Citibank during 1990–1995 but defaulted on repayment.
- Citibank filed a recovery suit in 1995 for Rs. 76,241,234.68 under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984.
- The suit was ultimately decreed on 15.10.1999 for the outstanding amount, but the claim for liquidated damages/markup was not allowed.
- During the pendency of the suit, the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 came into force and repealed the 1984 Ordinance.
- Citibank later filed an application under Section 152 CPC seeking amendment of the decree to add markup from the date of institution of the suit until payment.
- The Banking Court allowed the amendment, and the Lahore High Court upheld it.
- The matter then reached the Supreme Court.
Main Legal Questions
The Supreme Court essentially considered:
- Could markup under Section 15 of the 1997 Act be added to a decree for a suit originally instituted under the 1984 Ordinance?
- Could Section 152 CPC be used to add markup that had not been awarded in the original decree?
- Could Order XLI Rule 33 CPC justify the addition of such markup at the appellate stage?
Supreme Court's Findings
1. The law applicable at the time of institution of the suit governed the parties' substantive rights
Under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, repeal of an enactment ordinarily does not destroy rights, liabilities, or proceedings that had already accrued or commenced under the repealed law, unless the new legislation clearly indicates otherwise.
The Court distinguished between: