MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J. - Appellant-Bank/plaintiff, through the present appeal, has partly called in question judgment and decree dated 7-5-2003, whereby the learned Judge Banking Court passed a decree for the recovery of Rs. 112,334, against the respondents, jointly and Severally along with costs and cost of funds.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that the appellant filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 2,02,012, against the respondents, before the learned Judge Banking Court, inter alia, pleading that demand finance facility to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000 was sanctioned in favour of respondent No. 1 (principal debtor); respondent No. 2 stood as guarantor; both the respondents executed various documents (as mentioned in the plaint) and subsequently the respondents failed to liquidate the outstanding liabilities, which necessitated the suit. The respondents were summoned through all the modes of service, prescribed under the relevant law, and pursuant thereto, they filed an application seeking leave to defend the suit, wherein, the availing of the financial facility was admitted, however, it was submitted that they have paid certain instalments and they also challenged the entries made in the statement of account. The learned Judge Banking Court, after hearing the parties partly decreed appellant's suit to the extent of Rs. 1,12,334 along with costs and cost of funds against the respondents jointly and severally, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 7.5.2003, hence the present appeal.
3. None has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents, thus they are proceeded ex parte.
4. , Learned counsel for the appellant states that the learned Trial Court has wrongly reduced the claim of the appellant to the extent of Rs. 89,678 and thus the impugned judgment requires modification to that extent. He has added that the impugned judgment, to the extent of reduction of appellant's claim, is not sustainable in law.
5. We have heard the learned counsel, gone through the available record and perused the impugned judgment. We find that the learned Judge Banking Court, after examining the record of the case, going through the statement of account and after noticing that the respondents deposited a sum of Rs. 1,23,028 has rightly concluded that now only a sum of Rs. 1,12,334 is outstanding against the respondents. Learned counsel could not explain as to how the calculation made and the conclusions arrived at by the learned Judge Banking Court, in para. 8 of the impugned judgment, are either illegal or contrary to the record of the case, lt will be appropriate to reproduce para 8 of the > impugned judgment, which really clinches the matter:-- "The bare perusal of the record shows that demand finance facility to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000 was k sanctioned and agreement was executed between the parties on 19.4.1999. The purchase price was fixed Rs. 4,24,175 which the defendants have to pay in 72 monthly instalments. The defendants have to pay the 1st instalment after the elapse of 12 months i.e. Grace period, but they failed to do so and committed default and only an amount of Rs. 1,25,028 was deposited by the defendants.
The statement of account available on the record shows that only an amount of Rs. 1,23,028 was .Deposited by the defendants toward the adjustment of their outstanding liability. The mark-up calculated per month is Rs. 3113 and till date. Of default it comes to Rs. 37,362. Since the contractual period has not been elapsed, therefore, mark-up for the forthcoming period cannot be granted.
The plaintiff-banker's claim till date of default i.e. Grace period, after making adjustment of . An amount ; - deposited by the defendants it comes to Rs.1,12,334."
5-A. We have also gone through the statement of account and find that there are certain unauthorized entries and the statement of account has not been verified as required under section 4 of Bankers' Books Evidence Act. We are of the view that the statement of account is defective, not a prima facie, proof of the entries in the Book of accounts and cannot be relied upon in view of parameters laid down, qua statement of accounts, ln the judgments. Reported as Bankers Equity Limited through Principal Law Officer and 5 others v. Messrs Betonite Pakistan Limited and 7 others 2003 CLD 931 and Messer C.M. Textile Mills (Pvt.) Limited through Chairman and 5 others v.
Investment Corporation of Pakistan 2004 CLD 587.
6. Ln the above perspective, we have examined the impugned judgment and find that the same is legal,, i^ does not suffer from any legal infirmity and ho interference is called for by this Court. The., impugned judgment is hereby maintained.
7. Ln view of the above, appeal in hand is devoid of merits, hence the same stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.