Law:

Section:

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) Ss.10 & 22 Suit for recovery of loan Application for leave to appear and defend the suit Defendants, who had obtained loan from the plaintiff Bank, had brought nothing on record with the application for leave to defend the suit to show that the Bank had suppressed any material fact ¬Branch Manager of the Bank had signed the plaint on behalf of the Bank, who was authorized to sign the plaint under the law Banking Court had rightly drawn inference that the entire amount claimed by the Bank stood established as payable as execution of finance agreement had not been denied and signatures on any of the documents annexed with the plaint had also not been denied Banking Court, held, had rightly found that no substantial questions of law or facts were raised in the application for leave for defend for which evidence was needed. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J. The respondent-Bank/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.62,614,71.05 against the appellants/defendants, wherein it was mentioned that the appellants/defendants opened an Account No.1506 3 on 29 10 1999 and availed facility of running finance and guarantee from the respondent/plaintiff Bank but they did not adjust their liabilities outstanding against them. The appellants/defendants filed an application for leave to defend the suit, in which it was contended that the plaintiff bank has not come to the Court with clean hands, and suppressed the material facts, that the plaintiff bank has no cause of action to institute the suit and that the plaint has not been signed by the authorized person on behalf of the bank. The learned Judge Banking Court No. III, Multan dismissed the appellants/defendant's application seeking leave to defend the suit and consequent thereto passed a decree for recovery of Rs.58,46,824.10 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff Bank against the appellants/ defendants with costs. The learned Judge Banking Court also awarded the cost of fund to the respondent/plaintiff Bank from the date of default. The learned Judge disallowed the mark up of Rs.4,14,646.95. Hence this R.F.A. 2. Through this R.F.A., the…

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