Judgment Sheet
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SINDH KARACHI
First
Appeal No. 29 of 2015
Before :
Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar
Justice Mrs. Kausar Sultana Hussain
Appellant : Ghulam Rasool Abbasi through
Syed Shohrat Hussain Rizvi Advocate.
Respondent No.1 : United Bank Limited, through
Mr. Khalid Mehmood Siddiqui Advocate.
Auction Purchaser :
Lachman Das through
Mr. Khaleeq Ahmed Advocate.
Date
of hearing : 09.11.2018.
……………
J
U D G M E N T
NADEEM AKHTAR, J. – This appeal under Section 22 of the
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, (‘the Ordinance’) is directed against judgment
and decree dated 24.03.2015 and 02.04.2015, respectively, passed by learned Banking
Court No.II at Karachi in Suit No.138/2013, whereby the said Suit filed by
respondent No.1 was decreed with costs against the appellant in the sum of Rs.8,695,961.00
with cost of funds thereon from the date of default i.e. 30.06.2010 till
realization.
2. Relevant
facts of the case are that the above Suit was filed by respondent No.1 against
the appellant before the learned Banking Court for recovery of Rs.12,229,853.62
with cost of funds thereon from the date of default till realization of the
entire amount. The case of respondent No.1 / plaintiff, as averred in the
plaint, was that a finance facility to the tune of Rs.8,700,000.00 was
sanctioned by respondent No.1 in favour of the appellant on 30.11.2007, and in
consideration of the said facility, the appellant executed an agreement for
financing on markup basis dated 30.11.2007. In order to secure repayment of the
said facility, the appellant executed in favour of respondent No.1 general
power of attorney, undertaking, memorandum of deposit of title deeds and
mortgage deed, all dated 30.11.2007. It was alleged by respondent No.1 that
despite availing the entire facility, the appellant committed default in
fulfilling his obligations, and at the time of filing of the Suit an amount of
Rs.12,229,853.62 was outstanding against him including principal amount of
Rs.8,695,961.28 and markup thereon at the agreed rate.
3. The
appellant filed an application under Section 10 of the Ordinance seeking
unconditional leave to defend the Suit, which was dismissed vide order dated
26.08.2014. Thereafter, learned Banking Court proceeded to examine the
respondent No.1’s claim and through the impugned judgment and decree, decreed
the Suit with costs against the appellant in the sum of Rs.8,695,961.00 with
cost of funds thereon from the date of default i.e. 30.06.2010 till realization.
4. Perusal
of the application for leave to defend filed by the appellant shows that in
paragraph 3 at page 7 thereof he had admitted his liability in categorical and
unequivocal terms by stating that “Actually the amount recoverable from the
defendant may be Rs.8,695,961.28 and for the remaining amount the claim of the
plaintiff bank is illegal and unjustified.” It may be noted that the decree has been passed against the
appellant for exactly the above amount that was admitted by him, and the amount
disputed by him has not been awarded to respondent No.1. In the above
circumstances, we do not see any illegality or infirmity in the impugned
judgment and decree which, in our opinion, do not require any interference by this
Court.
5. Foregoing
are the reasons of the short order announced by us on 09.11.2018 whereby this
appeal and listed applications were dismissed with no order as to costs.
________________
J U D G E
_______________
J U D G E
*First Appeal 29-15 Decree Maintained/Judgments
DB/Court Work/Desktop/ARK*