Law:

Section:

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) -----Ss.9, 10, 22 & 24---Suit for recovery of Bank loan---Date of default by the borrower---Determination---Bank had served legal notice upon the borrower on 13-10-2000 which led to the conclusion that borrower had already committed default, which necessitated the Bank to serve legal notice---Contents of the legal notice in the present case, did not show any date of default and it had casually been stated therein that borrower failed to pay the agreed instalment as per terms of the finance---Statement of accounts showed that borrower paid the first instalment on 12-1-2000 and thereafter he did not pay any amount, and thus committed default---No other document was available on the record, which would go to show that the date of default was 9-5-2002 and not 12-1-2000 as alleged by the Bank---Plaintiff had to succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the other party---Bank having failed to substantiate its sole contention that date of default was 9-5-2002 and not 12-1-2000, its appeal against the order of the Banking Court was dismissed by High Court. JUDGMENT MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---Appellant-Bank through the present first appeal filed under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, has partially called in question judgment and decree dated 10-9-2002, whereby the learned Judge Banking Court partly decreed appellant's suit for recovery and disallowed a portion of its claim. 2. The appellant-Bank filed the suit for recovery of Rs.5,90,184, against the respondents, before the learned Banking Court inter alia, pleading that the financial facility of Rs.4,00,000 was sanctioned in favour of respondent No.1; respondents Nos.2 and 3 stood as guarantors; the respondents committed default in fulfilling their obligations and, thus, the plaintiff is entitled to the decree, against the respondents jointly and severally along with costs and cost of funds. Requisite summons, through all the modes of service, prescribed under the law, were issued to the respondents. However, only respondent No.3 filed the application for leave to defend 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