Law:

Section:

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)-------Ss. 10 & 9---Suit for recovery---Co-borrowers---Joint and several liability of borrowers, determination of---Application for leave to defend by the defendant was dismissed, and suit was decreed---Contention of the defendant was that she was a co-borrower and had mortgaged her property only to the extent of the finance that had been returned to the plaintiff Bank and that she was not the beneficiary of the enhanced amount sought to be recovered from her---Held, that under agreement of personal guarantee the liabilities of the guarantor were joint and several---Banking Court, if it was of the view that the other borrowers had adjusted the liability and were only responsible for the reduced amount which had been paid, then it was bound to grant leave to defend the suit to the defendants as separate liability could only be ascertained after recording of evidence---Banking Court had relied on a document which was undated and only showed the appellant as a co-borrower and no cheque or statement of account in the name of the appellant was produced---Impugned order of Banking Court was set aside and applications for leave to defend were allowed---Appeal was allowed, accordingly. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.---The respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,884,606.15 against the appellant and respondents Nos.2 to 4, asserting that respondent No.3 is a key applicant, the appellant being the co-borrower and respondent No.4 being guarantor requested for allowing a financial facility (Agri Finance) in the name of respondent No.2, on their request the respondent No.1 sanctioned a facility of Rs.4.3 Million to respondent No.2. The respondents for securing the said finance facility executed charge documents detailed in para 4 of the plaint, the appellant and respondents Nos.2 to 4 also mortgaged their immovable property for securing the finance facility and executed an agreement of personal guarantee. The respondents availed the facility and a sum of Rs.3,884,606.15 is outstanding against the appellant and respondents Nos.2 to 4. The appellant and respondents Nos.2 to 4 have…

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