| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3930 2025 SLD 3930 = 2025 SHC 2085 |
Suit No. B – 32 of 2021
Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry J.
Ghulam Murtaza and Ahmed Magsi, Advocate. and Abdullah Azzam Naqvi, Advocates. Mr. Hasan Khurshid Hashmi, Advocate. Heer Memon and Ammar Suria, Advocates. M. Adnan Abdullah, Advocates.
[Pak Brunei Investment Company Ltd., v. Atlas Cables (Pvt.) Ltd., & others]
Law: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
Section: 9, 10, 15
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: 5, 18
Law: Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891
Section: 2(8), 4
Law: Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002
Section: 3, 12
Law: Contract Act (IX of 1872)
Section: 133
Law: Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Section: VII
Summary:
The court dismissed the time-barred leave application of Defendant No.1 (principal debtor) but granted leave to defend to Defendants 2 to 7 regarding the finance recovery suit under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (FIO). The plaint will not be rejected despite non-compliance with section 9(2) of the FIO on filing a certified statement of account later with replication, and defendants may contest the accounts. Disputes among defendants do not affect the plaintiff’s claim.
Core Points:
- Plaintiff extended Rs. 630 million finance via Diminishing Musharakah facility; Defendant No.1 failed to repay by due date.
- Plaintiff recalled the loan under section 15 FIO; suit filed under section 9 FIO after a prior stay.
- Defendant No.1’s leave application was dismissed as time-barred; delay condonation application rejected.
- Fraud allegation against Defendant No.2 for delaying leave application by company directors was not accepted under section 18 Limitation Act.
- Plaintiff’s statement of account filed with plaint was insufficient and uncertified, violating section 9(2) FIO and Bankers’ Books Evidence Act.
- Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002 does not override the certification requirements of the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act.
- The plaint was not rejected as the correct statement of account was filed with replication.
- Defendants 2 to 7 granted leave to defend limited to contesting finance amount, repayment, profit charged, and decree.
- Defendant No.6 not discharged as surety despite contract variation due to continuing guarantee clause.
- Inter-defendant disputes of fraud do not affect plaintiff’s right to recovery.
- Procedure fixed for filing lists of witnesses/documents and appointment of Commissioner for evidence recording.
Law and Section Table
| Law/Ordinance | Section(s) | Citation/Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (FIO) | 9, 10, 15 | Sections on leave to defend, plaint admission, recovery recall |
| Limitation Act, 1908 | 5, 18 | Delay condonation and exclusion of time due to fraud |
| Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 (BBEA) | 2(8), 4 | Certification of bankers’ books for admissibility |
| Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 | 3, 12 | Legal recognition of electronic documents and certified print-outs |
| Contract Act, 1872 | 133 | Discharge of surety on contract variation |
| Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) | Order VII Rule 11, Order XXIX Rule 1 | Rejection of plaint, leave application filing by company officers |
O R D E R