SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.---This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18-3- 2004, passed by the Banking Court, Lahore.
2. Respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs.40,41,635.38 along with mark-up etc., the appellants and respondent No.2 filed applications for leave to defend the suit, the leave application of defendants Nos. 1 and 2/appellants was dismissed, however, the leave application of respond r t No.2 was allowed, thereafter the suit decreed, to the extent of appellants. The appellants are aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and decree, hence the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the suit has been decreed in haste, without fulfilling the requirements of judgment as contemplated by Order XLI, rule 31, C.P.C., the respondents have charged the mark- up in violation of the State Bank Instructions, the accounts have not been verified as mandated by law, the statement of accounts is also not in consonance with the disbursements made to the appellants and the defence set up by the appellant; in the application for the grant of leave has not been dealt with properly, especially qua the effect, that a fire broke out in the factory of the appellants and destroyed the hypothecated stocks for which the insurance company was bound to make payment.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 controverted the assertions made by the appellants and submitted that the accounts are in consonance with the disbursements made, the facility was enhanced from Rs.3 to 4 million, the appellants have accepted their liability and, therefore, the present appeal is without substance. On merits, he submitted that the Banking Court adverted to the defence raised by the appellants and dismissed the leave application after application of proper judicial mind.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also perused the impugned judgment and decree. The pith and substance of the arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the leave application was not considered properly qua the effect of fire breaking out in the factory and destroying the hypothecated stock, he submitted that the stocks were insured on the insistence of the respondent-Bank with the insurance company of the choice of CLD the respondent-Bank, therefore, recovery ought to be made from the insurance company. Perusal of the insurance policy reflects that the right of the bank to recover claim is unimpaired. Reference may be made to clause 1-(b) which reads:-- ....... And it is further agreed that whenever the company shall pay the bank any sum in respect of loss or damage under this policy and shall claim that as to the Mortgagor or Owner no liability therefore, existed, the Company shall become legally subrogated to all the rights of the bank to the extent of such payment but not so as to impair the right of the Bank to recover the full amount of any claim it may have on such mortgagor or Owner or any other party or parties insured hereunder or from any securities or funds available."
Therefore, the stance of the learned counsel that the recovery has to be made from the insurance company is without substance. As far as the objection qua the statement of accounts is concerned the facility in question was enhanced from Rs.3 to 4 Million, therefore, the statement of account is in consonance with the claim made by the bank. There is preponderance of documents attached with the plaint which clearly reflect that the appellants availed the facility in question and also admitted the same. Reference may be made to the agreement for financing. The trial Court appraised the documents appended with the plaint, the impugned judgment has dealt with all objections being raised now, including the leave application, therefore, the assertion of the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment is not in consonance with requirements of law is untenable and without substance Resultantly, this appeal has no merits and is dismissed. No order as to costs.