Supreme Court of Pakistan
M/s. Crescent Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Citibank N.A. 308 Upper Mall, Lahore and others
Published on this website
Civil Petition No. 1481-L of 2019
Citation: Approved for reporting; reported citation not stated in supplied copy
Background
Background
The Supreme Court held that Section 152 CPC cannot add statutory markup that changes the substance of a banking decree; substantive error must be challenged through appeal or review.
Citibank sued Crescent Spinning Mills in 1995 under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, and obtained a principal recovery decree in 1999. The Banking Court later allowed an application under section 152 CPC and amended the decree to add markup. The Lahore High Court maintained that result by relying on section 15 of the 1997 Act and Order XLI Rule 33 CPC.
Questions of decree correction, markup and appellate relief
Questions of decree correction, markup and appellate relief
Whether statutory markup could be added to a banking recovery decree through Section 152 CPC, or sustained under Order XLI Rule 33, after the original adjudication had not granted it and the suit had been instituted under the repealed 1984 Ordinance.
Court holding
What the Court decided
No. Section 152 is limited to clerical, arithmetical and accidental errors and cannot create a new substantive financial liability. Order XLI Rule 33 cannot invent a case outside the pleadings, and the later 1997 statute could not retrospectively alter preserved substantive rights through a correction application.
Final outcome
Final outcome
The petition was converted into an appeal and allowed. The Lahore High Court judgment and Banking Court amendment order were set aside only to the extent that they added markup; the principal recovery decree remained unaffected.
Practical effect
What the decision means in practice
The petition was converted into an appeal and allowed. The Lahore High Court judgment and Banking Court amendment order were set aside only to the extent that they added markup; the principal recovery decree remained unaffected.
This summary states the immediate effect recorded in the decision. The original judgment and the facts of the particular case remain controlling.
Key legal principles
Key legal principles
- Section 152 CPC corrects clerical or arithmetical mistakes and accidental slips or omissions; it cannot reconsider the merits or create a new substantive liability.
- A correction is proper where the formal decree fails to express relief already adjudicated, but appeal or review is required where the alleged error is judicial or substantive.
- A general prayer for other appropriate relief does not ordinarily authorize a distinct substantive remedy outside the pleaded and proved case.
- Order XLI Rule 33 permits an appellate court to mould relief within the dispute and record, but it cannot invent a new cause of action or grant relief founded on a case never pleaded.
- Section 6 of the General Clauses Act ordinarily preserves accrued rights, liabilities and pending proceedings after repeal unless the later law discloses a contrary intention.
- A transfer of pending proceedings to a new forum does not by itself authorize retrospective enlargement of the parties' substantive rights or liabilities.
- The pleaded claim for liquidated damages and pendente lite or post-decretal relief must be distinguished from statutory markup under section 15 of the 1997 Act; the judgment does not say that no interest-type relief was pleaded at all.
- Statutory markup under the later banking statute could not be inserted through section 152 after the original adjudication had declined the liquidated-damages claim.
Pakistan relevance
Pakistan relevance
For civil and banking litigation in Pakistan, counsel should compare the plaint, issues, judgment, decree and correction application before invoking section 152. If the proposed amendment needs a new legal finding, changes liability or relies on a later statute, it should be pursued through the remedy that permits substantive adjudication rather than clerical correction.
New judgment alerts
Follow this court or legal topic
Receive new judgments and analysis about Supreme Court of Pakistan, Civil Law by email.
Primary source
Original judgment and official source
This HTML summary does not replace the court record. Use the linked original judgment PDF or official court source to verify the exact text and directions.
Later treatment
Later treatment
The supplied copy is marked approved for reporting but states no reported citation. No later judicial treatment has been added as of 2 September 2026. Verify the official Supreme Court copy, reported citation and subsequent treatment before formal reliance.
Pinpoint research
Exact paragraph and citation links
Each numbered entry has a permanent link, a ready-to-copy pinpoint citation, and the corresponding page of the certified judgment. The short descriptions are editorial research aids; verify the Court's exact wording in the PDF.
Judgment of Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar11 paragraphs
Recovery suit and principal decree
Sets out the 1995 recovery claim, dismissal of leave to defend and the 1999 decree for the principal amount under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984.
Laws governing the banking proceeding
Introduces the 1984 Ordinance, the 1997 Act and the Code of Civil Procedure provisions relevant to the transferred recovery suit and decree amendment.
Prayer claimed liquidated damages
Reproduces the bank's prayer for liquidated damages and pendente lite and post-decretal relief, a passage that must be read separately from the later statutory-markup issue.
Court must remain within the pleaded case
Explains infra petita, ultra petita and extra petita and the limits on granting a distinct substantive relief beyond the pleaded and proved case.
Order XLI Rule 33 cannot invent a case
Recognizes broad appellate power to mould relief while holding that the provision cannot create a new cause of action or grant substantive relief outside the case presented.
Section 6 preserves accrued rights and liabilities
Applies the General Clauses Act savings rule to repeal, accrued rights, liabilities and pending legal proceedings unless the later statute indicates a contrary intention.
Procedure distinguished from substance
Explains that procedural changes may operate retrospectively, while a later enactment does not ordinarily prejudice existing substantive rights without clear legislative language.
Section 152 has a narrow corrective purpose
Confines section 152 to clerical, arithmetical and accidental errors and separates a permissible correction from reconsideration of the merits.
Decree may be aligned with an existing adjudication
Illustrates when an accidental omission from the formal decree may be corrected because the judgment itself had already granted the relief.
Markup created a substantive liability
Holds that adding markup from institution of the suit until realization was not a clerical correction but a substantial change to the parties' financial liability.
Appeal allowed to the extent of markup
Sets aside the High Court judgment and Banking Court amendment order only to the extent that they added markup, while leaving the principal recovery decree intact.
Research tools
Use this judgment in your research
Copy a link to a specific part
Judgment text is provided for legal research and general information. Verify the official court record before relying on it in proceedings.
Related article
Related article
The Supreme Court held that Section 152 CPC cannot add statutory markup that changes the substance of a banking decree; substantive error must be challenged through appeal or review.
Read the related article →