Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.VII, R.11

Law: Contract Act (IX of 1872)

Section: 73

Law: Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881)

Section: 117

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O.VII, R.11---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.73---Suit for damages and compensation by customer on the allegation of breach of contract by the Bank---Contention, of the customer was that defendant (Bank) having not got the written statement signed through its second attorney, plaint was liable to be rejected---Validity---Held, even where the pleadings were not signed, same could not be rejected on such hyper-technical ground---Such lapse could be remedied by permitting the party to sign it---In the present case, the moment such lapse or objection was raised, same was instantly remedied by the Bank and the Court rightly exercised its discretion and allowed the other attorney of the Bank to sign the written statement in red ink---No prejudice having been shown to have been caused to the customer, no exception therefore, on such hyper-technical ground could be entertained. Ismail and others v. Mst. Razia Begum and others 1981 SCMR 687 and Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din v. Noor Dad 1988 PLD 42 SC (AJ&K) ref.(b) Contract Act (IX of 1872)------S.73---Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S.117---State Bank of Pakistan Prudential Regulations for Consumer Financing, 2003, 0-1 to 0-5 and Reglns. 7 & 8---Banker and customer---Suit for damages and compensation by customer against Bank---Issuance of credit card by Bank to customer---Contention of the customer was that while travelling, throughout the journey abroad his credit cards were not accepted for payment each time the same was presented, he not only felt greatly insulted, disgraced, defamed and humiliated, as if he was using stolen cards---Customer claimed to have suffered mental torture and agony and claimed damages---Bank, in its written statement denied the allegation and blamed the customer or their agent Bank, who did not pay the renewal charges in time despite having been raised through invoices---Breach of any of the contracts, either between the card holder and or retailer, cardholder and issuer and/or between the issuer and the retailer and/or all of three, in absence of any special enactment, would be governed by S.72 of the Contract Act, 1872---Generally,…