Law: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)

Section: 9,10,10(1)

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.VII,R.11

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 9 & 10---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 11---Suit for recovery of finance---Rejection of plaint---Absence of cause of action---Non-filing of application to defend the suit---Defendants sought rejection of plaint on the plea that bank did not have any cause of action against them---Plea raised by bank was that without seeking leave to defend the suit, application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. could not be decided---Validity---Words appearing in S.10(1) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, were of great importance as they indicated that if defendant failed in obtaining leave to defend the suit, his admission would be deemed only to the extent of allegations of fact in plaint and decree in favour of plaintiff might be passed only because of such admission of allegations of fact in plaint or such other material as Banking Court required in the interest of justice---Before passing decree in favour of plaintiff in a blindfolded fashion because of defendant's failure in obtaining leave to defend the suit, allegations of fact in plaint must be examined critically and minutely by Banking Court so as to corroborate as to whether or not the same constituted a cause of action in favour of plaintiff---Cause of action would arise out of the fats pleaded/alleged in plaint---Provisions of S.10(1) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, were directory and not mandatory in nature because of the use of word "may" therein---From the averments made in plaint and in view of relevant admitted material on record, the facts averred and allegations made in plaint did not disclose any cause of action and also the plaintiff had no cause of action when the suit was instituted--- Plaint was rejected in circumstances. Banque Indosuez v. Banking Tribunal for Sindh and Balochistan and others 1994 CLC 2272; UBL v. Messrs Aziz Tanneries (Pvt.) Ltd. 2004 CLD 1715; Imran Ali Soomro v. Saudi Pak Leasing Company Limited 2011 CLD 269; H.B.L. v. Crescent Softwear Products (Pvt.) Ltd. 2009 CLD 412; Bank of Khyber v. Messrs Spencer Distribution Ltd. and…