Law:

Section:

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)-------Ss.9 & 22---Appeal---New plea, raising of---Borrowers did not raise the plea before Banking Court that they had made the payments according to the finance agreement, nothing was due against them and the bank could not go beyond the agreement of finance---Bank pleaded that at the end of agreement period, it was automatically renewed and remained enforced until such time till it was terminated by the Bank by notice to the customer---Validity---Borrowers did not urge the plea which had now been raised before High Court for the first time---Litigant could not be allowed to raise altogether a new and different plea before appellate/revisional Court, which had not been raised before lower forums---Borrowers were precluded from raising the solitary ground before High Court for the first lime--Judgment and decree passed by Banking Court was not open to exception and the Court did not commit any illegality in passing the same---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. JUDGMENT MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---Appellants, through the filing of the present appeal, have called in question judgment and decree dated 2-10-2002, whereby the learned Judge Banking Court passed a decree for recovery of Rs.3,05,108, together with costs and cost of funds, against the appellants. 2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that the respondent-Bank, on 3-12-2001, filed the suit for recovery of Rs.3,66,129 (suit amount Rs.3,05,108 + liquidated damages Rs.61,021), against the appellants, who filed the application seeking leave to defend the suit. The learned Banking Court dismissed the said application and consequently passed a decree for recovery of Rs.3,05,108, together with costs and cost of funds, against the appellants, however, declined to award the amount of liquidated damages, amounting to Rs.61,021, vide impugned judgment dated 2-10-2002, hence the present appeal. 3. Record of the learned Banking Court has been received, today, under the orders of this Court. 4. The names of both the learned counsel, for the respondent, have been published in today's cause list, but none has entered appearance to represent the…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492