CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.---Briefly stated the facts out of which the present appeal arises that the appellants secured loan from the respondent-Bank. An agreement was also executed between the appellants and the respondent-Bank. Respondent-Bank has sanctioned the loan in favour of the appellants after completing all the legal formalities. Appellants failed to discharge the liability in terms of the agreement. Respondent-Bank being aggrieved filed suit for the recovery of Rs.55,148 including damages of. Rs.20,000 for sale of the mortgaged property in Banking Court-II, Gujranwala. Appellants filed application for leave defend, which was refused, consequently the suit of the respondent-Bank was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 12-11-1999. Appellants being aggrieved filed this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent-Bank has not filed the suit in terms of section 9 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances)
Act, 1997 and also did not file the suit in terms of the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure as is evident from the contents of paras1 and 2 of the plaint. He further submits that the Banking Court erred in law to assume jurisdiction, which is not in consonance with the provisions of the aforesaid law and the law laid down by the superior Courts. In support of his contentions he relied upon Government of Pakistan v. Premier Sugar Mills and others PLD 1991 Lahore 381; Messrs Standard Hotels (Private) Ltd. v. Messrs Rio Centre and others 1994 CLC 2413 and National Bank of Pakistan and others v. Karachi Development Authority and others PLD'' 1999 Karachi 260. He further urges that the appellants have discharged liabilities of the respondent-Bank as is evident from Annexures G and H. The Banking Court erred in law to dismiss the application of the appellants for leave to defend. He further urges that the respondent-Bank has to attach Articles of Associations of the company of the respondent-Bank along with the plaint, but the respondent-Bank failed to attach the documents to show that the company was registered originally and thereafter the respondent-Bank has to register the same under the provisions of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, but the respondent-Bank did not comply with the provisions of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, therefore, the suit filed by the respondent-Bank was not competent.
3. Service of the respondent-Bank has been affected as is evident from the report of the process server. Despite service nobody has entered appearance on behalf of the bank, therefore, ex parte order is passed against the Bank.
4. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record ourselves. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellants have not raised the aforesaid pleas before the Banking Court as is depicted from the contents of the application for leave to appear and defend. It is settled principle of law that the parties are bound by their pleadings as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Mst. Murad Begum and others v. Muhammad Rafiq and others PLD 1974 SC 322, therefore, the fresh pleas raised by the learned counsel for the appellants during argument before this Court, are not sustainable in the eye of law on the well-known principles of estoppel and waiver. It is pertinent to mention here that the documents signed by the appellants at the time of securing the loan and statement of account is also filed along with the suit and the amount deposited by the appellants in the account in question was duly depicted from the statement of account and credited, therefore, the appellants failed to furnish sufficient material on record to interfere in the findings of the Court below. The other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the filing of the suit without complying the provisions of the Banking Act, 1997 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure has no force in view of the law laid down by this Court in "
Muhammad Ramzan's case" 2001 CLC 158. Even otherwise section 9 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, is very clear that even the Branch Manager is competent to file the suit.
In view of what has been discussed above, we do not find any force in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.