SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.---This appeal is directed against the order dated 8-12-2004, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents was decreed by the Banking Court, Faisalabad.
2, The respondents/plaintiffs obtained a finance facility for purchase of tractor for Rs.2,48,310 along with mark-up of Rs.1,92,774. It was payable in 19 instalments the liability was liquidated and agreed deposit of Rs.4,41,084 was made. Despite payment appellant refused to settle the account, therefore, the respondents were constrained to file a suit for rendition of account. The appellant/defendant filed application for the grant of leave to defend the suit, claiming that an amount of Rs.81,696 was still outstanding. Replication was filed by the plaintiffs respondents reiterating the contents of the plaint and denying the assertion. After contest the Banking. Court decreed the suit.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that instalments were not paid at the stipulated dates, therefore, penalty was imposed. He adverted to clause 25 of the finance agreement submitting that the respondents/plaintiffs had not adhered to the agreed schedule and terms, therefore, liability was not liquidated, hence the impugned decree is, not in consonance with law.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the statement of account. The agreement is not denied. The facility was for the purchase of tractor and was liable to be liquidated in the agreed instalments. Statement of account clearly reflects that agreed amount was duly paid by the plaintiffs/respondents. Therefore, the claim of the appellant is restricted to the imposition of penalty on account of delayed payment of instalments.
The provisions of BCD Circular No.32 dated 26-11-1984 disallow this the position has already been interpreted in Askari Commercial Bank Limited and others v. Pakland Cement and others PLD 2000 Karachi 246. Therefore, the appellant-Bank could only initiate steps for recovery of outstanding instalments. The respondents/ plaintiffs had diligently discharged their liability by depositing the instalments and liquidated the liability. Leave to defend has been correctly refused by the Banking Court. There is no illegality in the impugned order and decree, resultantly, this appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.