' AZIZ-UR-REHMAN, J.---This Is a :suit filed by the plaintiff Bank against defendants for recovery of Rs,56,543,164 (as on 30-11-2009) 'under section 9 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances)
Ordinance, 2001 [Ordinance No,XLVI of 20011 with the following prayers:--
(a) Money decree for the recovery of the amount of Rs,56,543,164 (as on 30-11-2009) along with.
Markup at the agreed rate of (Kibor @ 14.25+550 from the date of default or at the prescribed .Rate of cost of funds whichever is higher against the defendants jointly and severally.
(b) Mortgage decree for foreclosure in respect of properties of defendants as referred herein above
(i) All the piece or parcel of land bearing properties bearing Shops Nos.M-8, M-46, M-13, M-3, M-
39. M-7, M-28, M-27, M-15, M-16, M-93, M-9. M-6, M-92, M-66, M-78, M-63, M-79, M-64/65, M-14. On Mezzanine floor, Agha Shoppini; Galleria, constructed on plot No,V-a/01, Sub Block No, V at Nazimabad, Karachi belonging to defendant No,3 or thereabout together with building and super- structures thereon constructed or to be constructed in future, together with access to and the right or use of any gas, water and electric main and/or cables and any drains, channels or sewers of drain."
(ii) AU the piece or parcel of land bearing properties bearing Shop Nos..F-1,F-4 and .F-5, on First floor, .Agha Shopping Gallcria" Constructed. On Plot No,V-al 01, Sub B:ock No, V at Nazimabad, Karachi belonging to defendant No,3 or thereabout together with building and super structures thereon constructed or to be constructed in future, together with access to and the right or use of any gas, water and electric main and/or cables and any drains, channels or sewers of drain."
(1W All the piece or parcel of land bearing properties bearing House No, C-256, Block No, .10, Federal B Area, Karachi admeasuring 600 square yards, belonging to defendant No,2 or thereabout together with . Building and superstructures thereon constructed or to be constructed in future, together with access to and the right or use of any gas, water and electric main and/or cables and any drains, channels or sewers of drain.. "
(a) To execute the decree through other assets of the defendants/guarantor Nos.2 to 4 in case the proceeds of the 'above assets full short.
(c) Cost of the suit.
2. Brief facts leading to the above prayers are:
3. Per assertions made in the plaint the plaintiff is a banking company within the meaning Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 having it's registered office at Muhammadi House I.i. Chundrigar Road Karachi inter alia a branch at Korangi Industrial Area, Karachi.
4. The defendants are customers of the plaintiff Bank within the meaning of FIO, 2001 and are mortgagors and guarantors working under the name and style of All Hamid Travels having liabilities joint and several as being partners and principal borroweRs, ' The plaintiff granted to and the defendants availed from the plaintiff Bank finance 'facilities on the terms and Conditions as agreed between the parties. In this regard, various agreements of financing of which the last one is dated 3rd December, 2008, Letters of guarantees, Memoranda of deposit of title deeds, Deeds of registered mortgages etc. Were also signed and executed from time to time by the customeRs,
6. The defendants, in consideration of and in acknowledgement of availing of finance facilities and as security executed besides the aforesaid documents also signed and executed demand promissory note dated 3rd of June, 2008, Letter of continuity' dated 3rd of June, 2008, letter of arrangement dated 3rd June, 2008, confirmation and undertaking dated 3rd June, 2008 in favour of the plaintiff Bank. All the documents including the Finance agreements were duly signed and executed, voluntarily and without any coercion.
7. Finance facilities granted to arid availed by the customers being Running Finance is in the sum of Rs,43,000,000 (Forty three millions) and an excess over limit ,in the sum of Rs,4,000,000 (Four millions only). The outstanding amount per assertions of the plaintiff Bank, thus comes to Rs,56,543.164 as on 30-11-2009 which is due and payable.
8. The defendants Nos.2, 3 and 4 in their capacities as guarantors and as security for the facilities granted to availed by the defendant No,1 also signed, executed and delivered their personal letters of guarantees. The terms and conditions therein were agreed mutually. Under the terms and conditions of the letters guarantees, the defendants Nos.2, 3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay not only the sum of Rs,50,337,143 as mentioned therein, but also cost, service charges etc.
9. Defendant No,2, as security also created a token registered mortgage dated 2-2-2008 in the sum of Rs,100,000 and equitable mortgage through execution of memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 26-1-2008 in respect of immovable property bearing House No,C-256, Block No,10, Federal B Areas, admeasuring 600 square yards Karachi in the sum of Rs,25,425,900. The title documents of the aforesaid property belonging to defendant No,2 are also lying as security with the plaintiff Bank.
10. Defendant No,3 also created equitable mortgage by way of execution of memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 3-6-2008 in the sum of Rs,50,337,143 plus cost, service charges etc. For and in respect of immovable properties bearing Shops Nos.M-8, M-46, M-13, M-3, M-39, M7, M-28, M-27, M-15, M-16, M-93, M-9, M-6, M-92, M-66, M-78. M-63, M-79, M-64/65, M-14, on Mezzanine, Floor, Agha Shopping Galleria" Constructed on Plot No,V-a/01, Sub-Block No,V at Nazimabad, Karachi. The plaintiff Bank is also holding title documents of the said properties deposited by defendant No,3 with the Bank. Apart from the above, defendant No,3 created another equitable mortgage by way execution of .a memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 20-3-2008 in the sum of Rs,15,000,000 in respect of Shops Nos.F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4 and F-5 on First Floor, "Agha Shopping Galleria" constructed on plot No,V-A/01, Sub Block No,V, Nazimabad, Karachi. Besides a token registered mortgage dated 26-3-2008 in the sum of Rs,100,000 plus service charges, expenses etc., was also signed and executed. A further equitable mortgage through execution of memorandum of deposit of title deeds in the sum of Rs,2,261,738 regarding immovable property bearing Shop Nos.F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4 and F-5, on First floor, Agha Shopping Galleria" constructed on plot No,V-A/01, Sub Block No,V at Nazimabad, Karachi was also created by defendant No,3. The title deeds/documents of the aforesaid immovable properties/shops are also in possession of the plaintiff Bank as mortgagee.
11. Per averments in the plaint since the defendants committed default and/or neglected repayment of the amounts outstanding thus plaintiff Bank was constrained to file above suit.
12. Per further averments in the plaint, as on 30-11-2009, an amount of Rs,56,543,164 is due and payable. The Breakup of the amount of facilities extended by the plaintiff to and availed by the defendant No,1 as well as repayment made by the defendant No,1 and the balance amounts outstanding as on 30-11-2009 is below:--
(a) The amounts of finance availed by the defendant from the plaintiff Rs, 43,000,000 disbursed on 3-6-2008 and Rs, 4,000,000 disbursed on 3-12-2008.
(b) The amounts paid by the defendant to the plaintiff and the dates of payment. A total of Rs,3,602,958 detailed in the statement of account Annexure "P" duly adjusted resulting in the present outstanding.
(c) The amounts of finance and other amounts relating to the finance payable by the defendant to the plaintiff up to the date of institution of the suit Rs,56,543,164 (as on 30-11-2009).
13. Despite calling upon the defendants, to pay the outstanding amount, the defendants per assertions made in the plaint, however, failed and/or avoided and/or neglected to repay the outstanding. Besides a cheque for partial liquidation of the liability on presentation, per averments in the plaint, was also dishonored. Per assertions a complaint in respect the offence has already been filed in the relevant court of law. Per averments the cause of action arose on various dates, when various documents were executed, financial facilities were availed, charges were created and as stated finally arose on 30-11-2009, when default in repayment of the outstanding amounts was committed by the defendants.
14. Upon filing of the above suit, on 13-3-2010 process under section 9(5) of the F.I.O., 2001, were issued to the defendants by all prescribed modes including publications in newspapers Daily "Dawn" English Karachi dated 30-3-2010 and Daily "fang" Karachi dated 20-3-2010. Notwithstanding service in terms of section 9(5) of F.I.O., 2001, no leave to defend application was filed by any of the defendants as required under section 10(2) within 30 days' statutory period. In absence of any application for leave to defend the suit, in terms of section 10(1) of F.I.O., 2001, defendant(s) is/are not entitled to defend the suit. Ultimately, the suit was fixed in court for final disposal.
15. On 21-5-2010, one Muhammad Hanif son of Rehmatullah, in his capacity as an 'intervener' filed an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. Read with section 151 (C.M.A. 5186 of 2010) for becoming party in the Banks' suit, on the alleged plea, that he had entered into some negotiations with defendant No,2 for purchase of the 'mortgaged property' bearing viz. Double storeyed residential house constructed over a plot of rand bearing No,C-256 admeasuring 600 square yards situated in Block-10, F.B. Area KDA Scheme No,16, Karachi, belonging to defendant No,2 and admittedly mortgaged with the Bank.
16. The aforesaid C.M.A. No, 5186 of 2010, after filing of counter affidavit by the plaintiff Bank, was heard on 4-11-2010 and thereafter order was reserved. On 24-12-2010, the aforesaid application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. Read with section 151, C.P.C., filed by the intervener, was finally dismissed as being without merit. The relevant portions of order read as under:-- "4. ....That the present suit for recovery of amount was filed by the plaintiff on 13-3-2010 under section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 in which the plaintiff has prayed for money decree as well as mortgage decree in respect of the properties including the house in question. According to the plaintiff the defendant party had availed the finance facility in the year 2008 and thereby mortgaged their properties including the house in question in favour of plaintiff Bank. The notices were issued to the defendants and the same were also got published in the newspapers but none appeared for the defendants. On the contrary, the intervener appeared and filed present application A on 21-5-2010 requesting therein to add him as defendant No,5. The plaintiff bank has filed a counter affidavit through its attorney to the affidavit filed in support of the application of intervener who has not filed any rejoinder.
5. Since the present suit for recovery was filed by the plaintiff bank in connection with the finance facility availed by the defendants in the year 2008 whereby the properties including the house in question was mortgaged by the defendants with the plaintiff bank and since the intervener claims to have entered into a subsequent contract and has purchased the house in question from the defendant No,2 under an agreement of sale dated 8-4-2009 and such a separate Suit No,730 of 2010 has also been filed by intervener against the defendant No,2 for specific performance of the contract, therefore, the intervener is at liberty to proceed with his such suit for his alleged claim but he has no concern with the present suit filed by the plaintiff bank against the defendants and accordingly the intervener is neither a necessary nor proper party to be impleaded in the present suit.<.b>
6. Consequently, the above application of the applicant/intervener deserves no merit and therefore, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as cost."
17. Thereafter on 10-5-2011, when the above suit same up for final disposal the following order was passed:- "Learned counsel for the plaintiff is directed to file affidavit in ex parte proof along with documents and breakup of accounts showing therein specifically the amount availed by the customers/defendants; the amount paid by them and the agreed markup charged by the bank separating it from the accrued markup, within seven days from today on which date the officer of the bank filing the affidavit in ex parte proof shall also be in attendance."
18. Subsequently on 31-5-2011 'Examination-in-Chief of P.W. 'Muhammad Sharif, a duly constituted attorney of the plaintiff Bank, was recorded on 31-5-2011. Besides, his 'affidavit-in-ex parte Proof as Exh.5/1, the said witness also produced other documents as Exh.5/2 to Exh.5/22. In compliance with court's observations made/recorded at the time of recording of 'examination-in-chief of the Bank's witness, the remaining 'original title documents' of various 'Shops' and House No,C-256, Block-10, F.B. Area, Karachi were also produced, seen and returned.
19. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff Bank and also scanned the record available before me.
20. Mr. M.A. Khan learned counsel for the plaintiff, at the very outset, made a reference to the finance agreement dated 3-6-2008 [Exh.5/7] and submitted that per the said finance agreement, the Sale Price fixed is PKR.43,000,000 and Purchase Price is PKR.50,337,148. The Purchase Price under agreement of Finance [Exh.5/7] was payable on or before, 30-5-2009. Learned counsel for the plaintiff, while arguing the case, focused court's attention on the 'BREAK-UP OF LIABILITY [Exh.5/22J' and submitted that in fact RF sanction limit is Rs,43,000,000. (Rupees Forty Three Millions Only) however, an amount of Rs,4,000,000 (Rupees Four Millions only) was availed as 'Excess over limit'
[EOL]. In all, thus Mr. M.A. Khan learned counsel for the plaintiff Bank contended an amount of Rs,46,999,587 has been availed by the Customer/Defendant No, 1.
21. Contrary to this, as far as the sanctioned limit is concerned, per the approval letter dated 2-6- 2008 [Exh.5/6], the amount sanctioned is Rs,40,000,000 (Rupees Forty Millions Only), which sanctioned limit, however, later on was enhanced by Rs,4,000,000 vide enhancement cum sanctioned letter dated 3-12-2008 [Exh.5/8]. Thus per Exh.5/6 and Exh.5/8 the total sanctioned amount comes to Rs,44,000,000 [Rupees Forty Four Millions Only]. Now if, the Finance agreement dated 30-6-2008 [Exh.5/7] is seen in juxtaposition of sanction/enhancement-cum-approval letters [Exh.5/6 and Exh.5/8] which are duly signed and accepted by the defendants then the total sanctioned amount thus comes to Rs,44,000,000 [Rupees Forty Four Millions Only]. In this way seemingly, the excess over limit amount (EOL), comes to Rs,2,999,587 [Total availed amount of Rs,46,999,587 per Exh.5/22(-) Rs,44,000,000 per Exh.5/6 and 5/8].
22. Evidently per Exh.5/22, the total Mark-up received by the plaintiff Bank from the customer/defendant No,1 is Rs,3,602,959. However, in another Break-up of liability, placed on record by the plaintiff Bank, the amount repaid by the Customer/Defendant No,1 to the Bank is Rs,4,066,160.
This 'BREAK-UP OF LIABILITY' though available on record but has not been Produced and Exhibited during evidence of Bank's witness. Both the Exhibited Break-up and Unexhibited 'Break- up'/STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNTS are reproduced as under:- "BREAK-UP OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT TYPE OF FACILITY - RUNNING FINANCE LIMIT SANCTIONED/AVAILED (RF) RS,43,000,000
(EOL) RS,4,000,000 CLAIM AMOUNT AS ON MARCH 30, 2011 Amount in Rupees Particulars Amount Amount outstanding Received 1 Sanction Amount 42,999,587 2 Excess over limit 4,000,000 3 Total Principle Availed by the Customer 46,999,587 4 Agreed mark-up paid by the Customer Mark-upfortheperiod30-6- 2008receivedon 31-7-20081,187,784 Mark-upfortheperiod30-9- 2008receivedon3-12-20081,915,175 Mark-up for the period 31-12-2008 partially received Total mark-up received500,000 Agreed mark-up Outstanding/Due 3,602,959 5 Balance Mark-up for the period 31/12/081,688,483 0/s Mark-up for the period 31-3-2009 2,432,006 0/s Mark-up for the period 30-6-2009 78,547 0/s Mark-up for the period 31-3-2009 ,12,877 0/s Mark-up for the period 31-3-2010 1,622,452 0/s Mark-up for the period 30-6-2010 540,817 0/s Mark-up for the period 30-9-2010 1658,506 0/s Mark-up for the period 31-12-2010 1658,506 0/s Mark-up for the period 31-3-2010 1,622,452 Total Claim Amount as of March 30, 2011 (3+5)58,314,231 Mark-up for the period 31-12-2008 partially received Total mark-up received 5.Agreed mark-up Outstanding/Due 5 Balance Mark-up for the period 31/12/08 0/s Mark-up for the period 31-3-2009 0/s Mark-up for the period 30-6-2009 0/s Mark-up for the period 30-9-2009 0/s Mark-up for the period 31-3-2010 0/s Mark-up for the period 30-6-2010 0/s Mark-up for the period 30-9-2010 0/s Mark-up for the period 31-12-2010 0/s Mark-up for the period 31-3-2010 Total Claim Amount as of March 30, 2011 (3+5)
[un-Exhibited Break-up Available in Main File] "BREAK-UP OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT TYPE OF FACILITY - RUNNING FINANCE LIMIT SANCTIONED/AVAILED (RF) RS,43,000,000
(EOL) RS,4,000,000 CLAIM AMOUNT AS ON MARCH 7, 2011 Amount in Rupees Amount in Rupees Particulars Amount Received Amount Outstanding 1 Sanction Amount 42,999,587 2 Excess over limit 4,000,000 Total Principal Outstanding 6,999,0587 3 Mark-upfortheperiod31-3- 2008receivedon2-4-2008463,201 Mark-upfortheperiod30-6- 2008receivedon31-7-20081,187,784 Mark-upfortheperiod30-9- 2008receivedon 3-12-20081,915,175 Mark-up for the period 31/12/2008 partially received500,000 Total Received 4,066,160 Date of Default from 1-10-2008SBP Cost of Fund letters attached for reference 4 Costoffunds fromOct1,2008toDec 31, 2009 @ 4.51%534,276 Costof funds from Jan1,2009toDec 31, 2009 @ 10.56%4,963,156 Costof funds from Jan1,2010toDec 31, 2010 @ 10.62%Costoffundsfrom Jan1,2011toMar 7, 2011 @ 10.62%4,991,356 Costof funds from Jan1,2010toDec 31, 2010 @ 10.62%Costoffundsfrom Jan1,2011toMar 7, 2011 @ 10.62%888,872 Sub: Total 11,377,660 Total Claim Amount as of March 7, 2011 (1+2+4)58,377,247
23. Since both the 'BREAK-UPS' of statement of accounts/fiabilities have come on record from the side of the plaintiff Bank, therefore, while extending the benefit of 'doubt' in favour of defendants/customers, I treat the uninhibited Break-up of liability/Statement Account as genuine, true and binding upon the Bank. The amount repaid by the defendant No, 1, per this un-exhibited statement of account/liabilities is Rs,4,066,160.
24. Now if, from the settled purchase price of Rs,50,337,143 per Exh.5/7, the repaid amount of Rs,4,066,160 per un-exhibited 'Break-up of liability' is deducted then the balance outstanding amounts comes Rs,46,270,983 and this is the amount, which in my view, remains genuinely outstanding against the defendants jointly and severally 'of course' plus cost of funds thereon in terms of section 3 of FIO, 2001, from the 'date of default' till realization.
25. Mr. M.A. Khan learned counsel for the plaintiff, further contended that defendants Nos.2, 3 and 4, under the letter of guarantees being duly signed and executed by them, are also jointly and severally liable and/or under legal obligations to pay the outstanding amounts of plaintiff Bank.
The letters of guarantees (i,e, Exh.5/13, Exh.5/14, Exh.5/15] besides being irrevocable, continuing guarantees also permit renewals, composition, variations and/or concessions given to the customer(s) or even to third party by the Bank. The guarantees are not dischargeable until all monies and liabilities due from and/or incurred by the customers, are fully repaid to the Bank.
26. I have examined the contents of the letter of guarantees and have also gone through sections 126 and 128 of the Contract Act 1872 [IX of 1872], have reached the conclusion, that defendants Nos.2, 3 and 4 in their capacity as sureties, not only liable to discharge the outstanding liabilities but their liabilities under law are also co-extensive with that of the principal debtor/defendant No,1.
27. Per learned counsel for the plaintiff Bank, the defendants Nos.2 and 3 besides being guarantors are also mortgagoRs, In this regard inter alia he has referred to Exh.5/16, (MODOTD dated 3-6- 2008], Exh. 5/17 [Registered mortgaged deed dated 15-5-2008], Exh.5/ 18 [MODOTD dated 26-1- 2008], Exh.5/19 [Mortgaged deed dated 2-2-2008] Exh.5/20 [MODOTD dated 20-3-2008], Exh.5/21.
[Mortgaged deed dated 26-3-2008]. Apart from the aforesaid documents defendants have also deposited the 'original title deeds' of the properties described in paras 6, 7 and 8 of the plaint. Per learned counsel the defendants have neither denied the documents signed and executed by them nor facilities granted to and availed by them. Per learned counsel the decreetal amount is recoverable through sale of the mortgage properties.
28. I have minutely perused the Memoranda, Mortgage deeds etc. Whereby the repayment of all amounts mentioned therein plus all other charges etc., have been secured. Under section 58(f) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, delivery of title documents of immoveable properties to a creditor or his agent, with an intent to create security thereon, is called mortgage by deposit of title deeds.
From bare reading of section 58(f) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it is manifestly clear that even Memorandum of deposit of title deeds is no requirement of law. In the present case, however, the defendants Nos.2 and 3 besides executing the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds have also executed Mortgage deeds. Thus I am of the opinion that the outstanding amount is recoverable through sale of the mortgaged properties belonging to defendants Nos.2 and 3.
29. Besides being partners of defendant No, 1, the defendants Nos.2, 3 and 4 in terms of section 25 of the Partnership Act, No, IX of 1932, are also jointly and severally liable for all acts of the Firm.
30. All the amounts received by the Bank from the customers' have been adjusted against the amounts of markup. Per learned counsel for the Bank, it has rightly been done so. In this regard, section 10(4) clause (b) and the relevant 'Explanation' provided thereto being relevant. For ready and convenience purposes clause (b) of section 10(4) and 'Explanation' thereto are reproduced as under:-- Clause (b) of section 10(4), F.I.O., 2001
(a) -----------------
(b) the amount of finance and other amounts relating to the finance payable by the defendant to the financial institution up to the date of institution of the suit; (c)
(d)
Explanations.---For the purpose of clause (b) any payment made to a financial institution by a customer in respect of a finance shall be appropriated first against other amounts relating to the finance and the balance, if any, against the principal amount of the finance.
' In view of the above legal position, I am of the considered opinion that bank has not committed any illegality in adjusting the amounts received against markup
31. In the Banking matters, it is not out of place to mention herein, that when defendant(s), despite service in terms of section 9(5), did not come forward and file leave to defend application, then in such eventuality, the allegations of fact in the plaint are be deemed to be admitted. Resultantly the Banking Court, may pass a decree in favour of the Bank on the basis of assertions/allegations and/or such other materials as the Banking Court may require in the interest of justice. Section 10(1) of F.I.O., 2001 being relevant in this regard is reproduced herein as under:-- "Leave to defend.---(1) In any case in which the summons has been served on the defendant as provided for in subsection (5) of section 9, the defendant shall not be entitled to defend the suit s he obtains from the Banking Court as hereinafter provided to defend the same; and, in default of his doing so, the allegations of fact in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and the Banking Court may pass a decree in favour of the plaint(ff on the basis thereof or such other material as the Banking Court may require in the interests of justice."
32. Per learned counsel, in absence of any leave to defend application, he contended the assertions made in the plaint deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff Bank, of course, deserves to have a decree in its favour as prayed. Mr. M.A. Khan, learned counsel fa; the plaintiff further contended that plaintiff Bank is entitled for cost of fund from the date of default till realization.
33. Indeed, the Bank is entitled to claim cost of fund from the date of default till realization but in my view, it is obligatory on. The Bank to firstly establish the 'date of default' from the 'repayment schedule' and/or from the Financial Agreement itself vies-a-vies statement of account. At this juncture, it is worth to mention that 'Repayment Schedule' is inseparable part of the Finance Agreement. In the present case 'Clause 1.3' of the Finance Agreement [Exh.5/7] reads as under:-- "1.3. The purchase price shall be paid by the customer to the Bank in such instalments and as such times (each a 30-5-2009) as the Bank prescribe."
34. Along with the Finance agreement dated 3-6-2008 [Exh. 5/7] neither the 'Repayment Schedule' has been produced/annexed nor in the Finance Agreement [Exh.5/71 itself there is any mention of the dates of instalments on which it become due. Even the number of instalments have not been mentioned in Exh.5/7. In view of the aforesaid scenario I am of the considered opinion, that the Bank is only entitled to claim 'cost of fund' from 30-5-2009 being expiry date of finance agreement [Exh.5/71 onwards. Till realization.
35. After having heard Mr. M.A. Khan learned counsel for the plaintiff Bank as above and having gone through the record available before me, I am of the considered opinion that the Bank is entitled to have a decree in its favour. For and in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the plaintiffs suit decreed in the sum of Rs,4,62,70,983 [Four crores sixty two lacs, seventy thousand nine hundred eighty three] against the defendants jointly and severally with cost of funds in terms of section 3 of F.I.O., 2001 from 30-5-2009 till realization of the decreetal amount. Besides prayer clause (c), a final decree for sale of the mortgaged properties mentioned/described in paras 6, 7 and 8 of the plaint and prayed for in un-numbered prayer clause (b)(i)(ii) and (iii), is also passed for recovery of the decreetal amount including cost of fund and cost of the suit. The suit stands decreed.