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

Section: 9 & 22

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 129

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)-------Ss.9 & 22---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.129---Suit for recovery of security amount---"Demand Finance Facility" under self-employment scheme which was sanctioned and was availed by borrowers, whereas respondents stood their guarantors and had secured repayment of said finance facility---Borrowers having failed to repay their entire outstanding liability, Bank initiated recovery proceedings by filing suit before Banking Court---Suit was dismissed on -the basis of report procured from A.I.G. Police Criminalistic Division, without discussing the effect of deposit of original title documents by the mortgagors, creation of charge on the mortgaged property, appearing on record for the last 10 years, valuation certificates, site plan etc., and effect of registered mortgage deed having a legal presumption attached thereto that all judicial and official acts were performed regularly as provided in illustration "e" to Article 129 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984--Impugned and decree were set aside and case was remanded to the Banking Court for decision afresh after providing an opportunity to both parties for adducing evidence.ORDER It is contended by the learned- counsel for the" appellant that "Demand- Finance Facility' under self-employment Scheme to the extent of Rs.3,00,000 was sanctioned and availed by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 whereas respondents Nos.3 and 4 stood guarantors and had secured the repayment of said finance facility. The respondent No.3 further in order to secure the repayment of outstanding liabilities of respondents Nos. 1 to 2 with some tangible security had executed registered mortgaged deed in respect of his residential property. The respondents were under the obligation to repay the said "Demand Finance Facility" to the appellant by 26 quarterly installments on or before 2-1-2002. Since the respondents failed to repay their entire outstanding liability therefore, the appellant had no option but to initiate the recovery proceedings by filing Suit No.50 of 2002 before Banking Court-I at Larkana. It was further contended by the learned counsel that the…