| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 350 2026 SLD 350 = 2026 CLD 102 |
Balochistan High Court
Civil Suit No.04 of 2024, decided on 9th September, 2025.
Presented By: Before Gul Hassan Tareen, J
Ajmal Khan Kasi for Plaintiff. Zayyad Khan Abbasi for Defendants.
Civil Suit No.04 of 2024, decided on 9th September, 2025.
Presented By: Before Gul Hassan Tareen, J
Ajmal Khan Kasi for Plaintiff. Zayyad Khan Abbasi for Defendants.
HABIB BANK LIMITED---Plaintiff
VERSUS
Messrs GHAZI STEEL INDUSTRIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED and others--Defendants
Law: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
Section: XLVI,3(2),9,10
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 114
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 3 (2), 9 & 10---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 114---Bankers Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S. 4---Suit for recovery of finance---Estoppel, doctrine of---Applicability---Cost of funds---Statement of account---Presumption--Plaintiff / bank filed suit for recovery of finance but defendant / customer raised the plea of signing of blank documents---Validity---Where executant admis execution of an instrument, he cannot be allowed to plead that he in fact executed blank papers---Law of estoppel did not allow defendant / borrower to admit execution of finance documents and at the same time dispute its contents by stating that at the time of execution of the instruments, they were left blank and were later filled in--Defendant / borrower defaulted in discharge of principal sum---Such default not only incurred cost of funds under S. 3(2) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 rather was actionable under S. 9 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---Plaintiff / bank was entitled for cost of funds from pleaded date of default---Statement of accounts annexed with plaint were certified in accordance with law, which was prima facie evidence of entries contained there in under S. 4 of Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891--Application for leave to defend the suit was rejected---Suit was decreed in circumstances. Mohd. Siddiq Mohd. Umar v. Australasia Bank Ltd. PLD 1966 SC 684; Muhammad Naveed v. Habib Bank Limited 2024 CLD 648; Decent Builders and Developers v. Standard Chartered Bank (Pakistan) Ltd. 2021 CLD 130; Abdul Khaliq v. MCB Bank Limited 2021 CLD 776; Jamal Tube (Pvt.) Ltd. Lahore v. First Punjab Modarba, Lahore 2021 CLD 1372; Bank of Punjab v. Fazal Abbas 2020 CLD 977; Anees-ur-Rehman v. Faysal Bank Limited 2019 CLD 1031; Murshid Ali v. United Bank Limited 2016 CLD 1471; Asia Motor Company v. NIB Bank Limited 2016 CLD 609; Pak Oman Investment Company Ltd. v. Chenab Ltd. 2016 CLD 1903; Haroon Traders v. K.A.S.B. Bank Ltd. 2015 CLD 645; Bank Alfalah Limited v. Presiding Officer 2014 CLD 160; Habib Metropolitan Bank Ltd. v. Abid…