MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.---The respondent-Bank/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.62,614,71.05 against the appellants/defendants, wherein it was mentioned that the appellants/defendants opened an Account No.1506-3 on 29-10-1999 and availed facility of running finance and guarantee from the respondent/ plaintiff-Bank but they did not adjust their liabilities outstanding against them. The appellants/defendants filed an application for leave to defend the suit, in which it was contended that the plaintiff bank has not come to the Court with clean hands, and suppressed the material facts, that the plaintiff bank has no cause of action to institute the suit and that the plaint has not been signed by the authorized person on behalf of the bank. The learned Judge Banking Court No.III, Multan dismissed the appellants/defendant's application seeking leave to defend the suit and consequent thereto passed a decree for recovery of Rs.58,46,824.10 in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff-Bank against the appellants/defendants with costs. The learned Judge Banking Court also awarded the cost of fund to the respondent/plaintiff- Bank from the date of default. The learned Judge disallowed the mark-up of Rs.4,14,646.95. Hence this R.F.A.
2. Through this R.F.A., the appellants/ defendants prayed that this appeal may be allowed, suit of the respondent/plaintiff-Bank be dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 28-10-2002 be set aside.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants/defendants that the learned Judge Banking Court while passing the impugned order did not give his findings on the point that agreement for finance and promissory Note are not legally valid as the date of execution mentioned on these documents is 3-1-2000, whereas adhesive stamps have been got embossed on 10-3-2000, which reflects that it was got signed blank and filled in, as per Bank's requirement, that the learned lower Court failed to calculate correct amount of mark up, so excessive amount of mark up was deleted/reduced partially, from the claim of the respondent/plaintiff bank and the mark-up on the guarantee amount cannot be charged on the following reasons:--
(a) There is no agreement/document on record for charging of mark-up and
(b) An agreement (counter guarantee) produced by the respondent/plaintiff-Bank, clearly indicates that 1% commission is chargeable, which was charged at the time of issuance of guarantee. and that the learned lower Court has not also taken into consideration the pleas raised regarding property documents that these properties were never offer .d to secure the alleged finance.
4. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff bank that appellants Nos.2 and 3 in consideration of the amount availed mortgaged their property for facilities of running finance and bank guarantee by appellant No.1/defendant No.1 vide mortgage deed dated 20-9-1994 and all the appellants/ defendants also deposited their original title deeds and also executed General Power of Attorney regarding mortgaged property in favour of the respondent/plaintiffBank and as such there was no need to give findings on the above said point even it is admitted that the appellants/defendants obtain loan from the respondent/ plaintiff-Bank and that the respondent/plaintiff-Bank had cause of action to institute the suit as execution of loan documents was not denied. The learned counsel supports the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that the appellants/defendants obtained loan from the respondent/ plaintiff-Bank, therefore, it cannot be said that the suit for recovery has not been filed with clean hands.
5. It is an admitted fact that the appellants/ defendants obtained loan from the respondents/plaintiff Bank. The appellants/defendants have brought nothing on record with the application for leave to defend the suit to show that the respondent/plaintiff-Bank has suppressed any material fact. Branch Manager of the respondent/ plaintiff-Bank had signed the plaint on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff-Bank, who was authorized to sign the plaint under the law. The learned Judge Banking Court has rightly drawn inference that the entire amount claimed by the respondent/plaintiff stands established as payable as the execution of finance agreement has not been denied and signatures on any of the documents annexed with the plaint have also not been denied. The learned Judge Banking Court had rightly disagreed with learned counsel for the appellants/defendants that no substantial questions of law or facts were raised in the application for which evidence was needed.
6. In the light of above, this appeal has no force kind is hereby dismissed.