' UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.---The plaintiff bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs,75.848 million against defendant No,1 principal debtor company and defendants Nos.2 and 3 guarantors whilst defendants Nos.4 to 9 were sued as directors without having furnished personal guarantees and defendants Nos.10 to 15 as guarantors/mortgagors. The suit was contested by defendants but on 30-7-2002 the PLAs were dismissed and a decree of Rs,75.848 million was passed in favour of plaintiff bank. The defendant No,10 mortgagor/ guarantor filed an appeal against the judgment and decree which was allowed on 22-1-2009 and her PLA was remanded for fresh decision by this Court.
2. The instant remand proceeding is confined to the dispute between the plaintiff bank and the defendant No,10. With respect to the remaining defendants the decree passed on 30-7-2009 is still intact.
3. The principal debtor company applied for and received two finance facilities. Vide sanction advice dated 6-1-1997, These facilities are running finance facility (RFF) of Rs,10.0 million and letter of credit limit (L/C limit) of Rs,10.0 million. As the sole tangible security the defendant No,10 deposited the original title document's of her property described in paragraph No,13 of the plaint.
These documents comprised sale-deed dated 23-11-1992 of property bearing No,47-A, L-Block Gulberg-III, Lahore measuring 16-, marlas, non-encumbrance certificate dated 24-9-1996 in respect of the said property, transfer letter No,6142 dated 28-12-1996 issued by LDA, MODTD for an amount of Rs,6.155 million dated 18-1-1997, registered power of attorney dated 28-1-1997 and registered mortgage deed dated 1-2-1997 for an amount of Rs,100,000. Finance facilities extended to the defendant principal debtor company were renewed and enhanced to Rs,28.0 million for RFF and Rs,50.0 million for L/C limit/letter of guarantee. At that stage the defendant No,10 deposited another MODTD dated 17-1-2001 and executed registered mortgage deed for Rs,01.0 million dated 1- 6-2001 and personal guarantee in the amount of Rs,86.372 million dated 1-3-2001.
4. The PLA filed by defendant No,10 raised seven preliminary objections that are repetitious in their content particularly on the plea that the defendant No,10 is not a customer nor a beneficiary of the finance extended by the plaintiff bank and therefore she is not liable. That plea has no weight. The law does not contemplate that a mortgagor ought to be a beneficiary of a finance or ought to have nexus with the principal debtor in order to be liable on a mortgage executed by him/her. In the present case there are several charge documents that are signed by the defendant No,10 including registered documents, namely, mortgage deed dated 1-2-1997, general power of attorney dated 28-1-1997 and second mortgage deed dated 1-6-2001. No material has been placed on record with the PLA to rebut the genuineness of the said registered documents.
5. The explanation given for the original title deeds of the mortgage property to be with the plaintiff bank is given in paragraph 4 of the PLA. It is claimed that title documents were handed over to defendant No,2 in the year 1994 and that he misused the same to get mortgage recorded on the said property. That plea is not backed up by any material to show that the defendant No,10 took any steps to retrieve title documents of her property from the defendant No,2. In any case the assessm ent order dated 10-1-1994 pertains to one Shirkat-ul-Khibor Pvt. Ltd of which it is claimed that the husband of the defendant No,10 was a director. There is no relevance of the property of the defendant No,10 with the said assessee company. More importantly there is nothing on record to show that the defendant No, 10 for seven years took any proceedings for retrieving the original, title documents from defendant No,2. Consequently the plea taken fails.
6. From the charged documents available on record there are some that were executed on behalf of the defendant No,10 by her husband as general attorney. Learned counsel for the defendant No,10 challenges these documents because the general power of attorney in favour of the husband is not available on record. However, learned counsel for the plaintiff has shown that the documents signed by the defendant No,10 in the year 1997 including registered mortgage deed dated 17-1-1997 for an amount of Rs, 1,00,000 accompanied with MODTD dated 18-1-1997 for an amount of Rs,6.155 million are signed by the defendant No,10 personally and these signatures match. It is stated in both these mortgage documents that the said security tendered to secure disbursement of finance to the defendant No,1 principal debtor company. To the mind of this Court there is nothing on record to rebut or disprove the said two documents. Accordingly. Interim decree in the amount of Rs,6.155 million is passed against the defendant No,10. In respect of the claim made by the plaintiff for the remaining amount of Rs,75.8 million unconditional leave to defend is granted to the defendant No,10. In terms of section 3 of F10, 2001 the decretal amount shall be subject to payment of cost of funds from the date when the defendant No,10 first disputed her liability towards the plaintiff bank, namely, the date of PLA. Come up for framing of jointly proposed issues on 12-1-2012.