CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.---Brief facts out of which the present appeal arises are that the respondent secured loan from the appellant amounting to Rs.2,50,000. The respondent has to repay the loan to the appellant in 72 equal monthly instalments. After grace period of 3 months the respondent failed to discharge his liability. The appellant-Bank filed suit for the recovery amounting to Rs.365,835.53 in Banking Court III, Lahore. The Banking Court decreed the suit of the appellant to the extent of Rs.256,503. Banking Court did not grant markup amounting to Rs.156,080 to the appellant, which was claimed by the appellant and was granted mark-up amounting to Rs.6,503.
The appellant being aggrieved filed this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Banking Court erred in law to grant mark-up amounting to Rs.6,503 instead of total mark-up claimed by the appellant amounting to Rs.1,56,080.
He further submits that the respondent has committed default of 34 instalments. The Banking Court erred in law to grant mark-up to the extent of first default committed by the respondent, which is not in accordance with section 3 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances)
Ordinance, 2001.
3. We have given our anxious considerations to the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record ourselves. The appellant has not attached copy of the agreement executed between the appellant. The appellant did not mention this fact in the documents relied upon by the bank as is evidenced from the suit filed before the Banking Court. It is settled law that a party cannot be permitted to raise an altogether new ground of attack or defence, by departing from its previous pleadings as per the law laid down by the Honourable Court in Mst. Murad Begum and others v. Muhammad Rafique and others PLD 1974 SC 322 The appellant is entitled to claim mark-up only in case the parties had executed buy-back agreement in terms of the sanctioned letter, which was neither relied upon nor produced before the trial Court by the appellant. As the respondent has not executed any agreement, which is not borne out from the record of the Banking Court, therefore, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Banking Court thus, the appeal has no merits and is dismissed leaving the patties to bear their own costs.