Law:

Section:

(a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (LXVI of 2001) S.10 Leave to defend the suit, grant of Excessive and unauthorized charge of mark up Borrowers disputed two entries in statement of account Was not clear if the disputed amounts corresponded to the rate of mark up agreed upon between the parties Was also not clear if the disputed amounts had been calculated keeping in view various deposits made by the borrowers from time to time ¬Effect For the resolution of such dispute of excessive and unauthorized charge of mark up, the borrowers had made out a case for grant of leave to defend the suit Judgment and decree passed by Banking Court to the extent of the disputed amount was set aside and case was remanded ¬Appeal was allowed accordingly. (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (LXVI of 2001) S.12 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2) Decree, setting aside of Non service of summons Defendant was guarantor and he denied receipt of any summons ¬Judgment was passed against the borrowers hence leave to defend the suit was also refused to the guarantor and the suit was decreed against him also Validity Judgment and decree against the borrowers was set aside to the extent of disputed amount, therefore, the same was also set aside to the extent of guarantor High Court converted the application of guarantor as application under S.12(2), C.P.C. and directed the Banking Court to decide the same on its facts mentioned therein until the application was decided, decree against the applicant would remain suspended ¬High Court further directed that if application under S.12(2), C.P.C. of the guarantor would succeed, then the decree shall stand set aside against him and he would be entitled to file fresh leave application Appeal was allowed accordingly. JUDGMENT MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J. In a suit for recovery filed by the respondent Bank against the appellants, the application for leave to appear filed by the appellants has been dismissed and the suit has been decreed to the tune of Rs.63,58,200 vide impugned judgment and decree dated 2 5 2002. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on, 22 6 2001 the respondent Bank brought a…

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