MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---Respondent-Bank brought. a suit for recovery of Rs.4,133,542 against the appellant on the basis of running finance facility. The appellant-defendant resisted the suit by moving an application for leave to appear and defend, which application, has been rejected and the suit had been allowed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset of his submissions today, has conceded that the admitted liability of the appellant is to the tune of Rs.3,914,367. However, his grievance is qua the balance decretal amount which has been awarded by the learned Banking Court as mark-up.
The submission in this behalf is that the decree had been passed under section 3 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. which does not provide for allowing the mark- up. rather only costs of funds could have been awarded to the respondent-Bank.
3. We are afraid, that this contention has no force: the suit in this case has been brought by the Bank under the provisions of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, in which, the Court has ample power to grant mark-up from the date of institution of the suit till realization of the amount. This is exactly what has been done by the Court below, therefore, the provisions of section 3 the Ordinance, 2001, which is a subsequent legislation, were inapplicable, resultantly, the submission of learned counsel for the . appellant has no merit, which is hereby repelled. This appeal, therefore, has no force and is hereby dismissed.