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

Section: XLVI,9,10,22

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)-------Ss. 9, 10 & 22---Suit for recovery of finance---Leave to appear and defend the suit, dismissal of---Substantial question of law, absence of--Suit filed by bank was decreed in its favour and against appellants / defendants---Validity---Application for leave to defend the suit was filed by appellants / defendants, reiterating the facts and disputing each and every assertion of bank, without raising any substantial question of law and facts with an aim to obfuscate claim of bank---Appellants / defendants attempted to make figures of amount outstanding against them as disputed, without presenting validly any evidence to rebut same---Such efforts of appellants / defendants were to make facts of the case unintelligent without offering any convincing alternate for a consideration---Appellants / defendants tried to dispute report of chartered accountant appointed with their consent by claiming unsuccessfully that the chartered accountant was biased in favor of bank, without pinpointing that his report was based on extraneous consideration or was an outcome of misunderstanding of facts---Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court as appellants / defendants failed to establish any material error in entries reflected in statement of accounts filed by bank nor could cite any excuse warranting their escape from fulfilling their obligation under agreements signed by them with the bank---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.2014 SCMR 1048 and 2017 CLD 342 ref.JUDGMENTMUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO J.---Respondent/First Women BankLimited filed a suit under section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 for recovery of finance amount Rs.370,383,869/(Rs.370.484 million) along with cost of funds and sale of mortgaged immovable properties and hypothecated goods/articles.2.    It is stated in the plaint that defendants/appellants, account holders with plaintiff bank, requested for finance facilities, which the bank approved and from time to time renewed/enhanced the same but the…