CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.---The brief facts out of which the present appeal arises are that father of the appellants secured a loan facility in the name of Messrs Ghulam Hussain and company from the respondent-Bank. An agreement was also executed between father of the appellants and respondent-Bank. According to the terms and conditions of the agreement the appellants' father had to repay the loan to the respondent-Bank in easy instalments. Father of the appellants failed to discharge his liability on behalf of himself as well as on behalf of the company. The respondent- Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs.497,343.92 with future mark-up at the contracted rate of 54 Paisas per thousand per day or at the latest rate of the Banking company for similar finance whichever is higher from the date of institution of the suit in Banking Court No.4, Lahore. The details of the mortgaged property are described in contents of para.5 of the plaint.
2. The appellants filed application for leave to appear and defend the suit which was partly accepted and after deducting the amounts of (i) Rs.20,401.96 and (ii) Rs.23,223.73 the suit was decreed for recovery of Rs.453,718.23. The appellants being aggrieved filed this appeal.
3. Learned counsel of the appellants submits that appellants have deposited Rs.65,000 under the incentive scheme issued by the State Bank of Pakistan but the same was not credited in the statement of accounts in its true perspective. He further submits that appellants have deposited Rs.1,30,000 in the account of Messrs Ghulam Hussain and company but the respondents mala fide deposited the same in the account of Messrs Abdul Rauf and company without consent of the appellants. He further submits that father of the appellants had two other accounts with the respondent-Bank. Father of the appellants deposited Rs.377,000. He was also guarantor in CRL/48/01 and CRL/48/02 issued by the respondent-Bank. The respondent-Bank handed over a sum of Rs.377,000 to Messrs Maqbool and Company and another amount of Rs.3,77,000 was transferred to LC No.CRL-47/1646, dated 1-11-1995 in the name of Messrs Abdul Rauf and Company.
He further submits that in case the amounts above mentioned be deducted nothing will be outstanding thereafter. Even if the said amounts are not adjusted the appellants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.60/70,000.
4. Learned counsel of respondent-Bank submits that appellants have not taken specific grounds in the application for leave to defend the suit. Therefore, impugned judgment is valid and the learned counsel of the appellants failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of the learned Banking Court.
5. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
6. It is admitted fact that father of the appellants died on 17-3-1996. The statement of accounts reveals that amount outstanding against the father of the appellants on 31-3-1996 was Rs.4,53,071.86. The statement of account also reveals that appellants have deposited Rs.65,000 in Bank in this account on 19-9-1997. They have also deposited Rs.2,00,000 in obedience of order of this Court dated 16-2-1999. The Banking Court erred in law not to give benefit of Rs.65,000 deposited by the appellants under the incentive scheme. Therefore, the judgment and decree is modified after deducting the said amount. It is pertinent to mention here that the decree was passed for Rs.453,718.23. The following amounts be deducted from the said amount of decree:--
(1) Rs.65,000
(2) Rs.2,00,000 Resultantly, the suit is decreed for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,88,718.23. The claim of the appellants to the extent of Rs.1,30,000 is not justified as the same was adjusted in another account.
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.