ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has ruled that a banking court cannot award markup to a bank if it was not explicitly claimed in the original plaint, setting aside a Feb 2019 Lahore High Court (LHC) judgement that allowed Citibank to recover markup through an amended decree.
A three-member SC bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, allowed the appeal, ruling that the banking court wrongly added unclaimed markup under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
In the 1990s, Crescent Spinning Mills obtained financial facilities from Citibank but failed to repay its dues. Citibank then filed a Rs76m recovery suit in 1995.
The suit was decreed in Citibank’s favour in 1999. The bank later obtained an amended decree under Section 152 CPC to include markup until recovery.
Says Section 152 CPC cannot be used to alter parties’ substantive rights or rehear a case
Subsequently, the LHC rejected the spinning mill’s appeal against the amendment. Consequently, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.
The SC had to decide whether a banking court could add unclaimed markup to a decree under Section 152 CPC.
Advocate Haq Nawaz Chattha, representing Crescent Spinning Mills, argued that Citibank’s original plaint had only prayed for the principal amount along with liquidated damages from Oct 1, 1995, at 19 per cent per annum. The trial court had specifically disallowed the claim for liquidated damages, he pointed out.
Moreover, the bank had filed the suit before the banking court constituted under the provisions of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984. Under Section 6(4) of the Ordinance, a decree could only be passed in favour of a banking company for the relief prayed for in the plaint. In the present case, the bank had only sought the principal amount along with liquidated damages.
On the other hand, Advocate Muhammad Omar Saleem contended that since the banking court had omitted to award markup in terms of Section 15 of the 1997 Act, the bank had filed a CMA under Section 152 CPC to rectify the omission, following which the decree was amended to include markup. He further contended that although the suit had been instituted under the 1984 Ordinance, the 1997 Act was in force when the decree was passed, and therefore markup could be granted.
The 18-page judgement said Section 152 CPC cannot be used to rehear a case or alter the parties’ rights. Any such error should be addressed through a review petition or appeal.
The judgement said a court generally could not grant relief that was not claimed in the plaint, as such relief was deemed abandoned under Order II, Rule 2 of the CPC.
Mere inclusion of a boilerplate prayer stating, “Any other relief which this court deems fit and proper may also be granted,” was not sufficient to justify an unclaimed relief unless it was fully consistent with the facts and evidence already on record, the judgement said.
The appellate court could grant alternate relief only if the necessary facts were already pleaded, consistent with the case, and not contrary to law.
The SC converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, setting aside the high court judgement and banking court order insofar as they allowed markup through the amended decree.
Published in Dawn, September 4th, 2026
