' SADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, J.---The Plaintiffs, Emirates Bank International, have filed the present suit against the above defendants for recovery of UAE Dirhams 2,687,195.27.
2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff is a banking company incorporated/constituted and operating under the laws of United Arab Emirates and carrying on the banking business in Pakistan.
At the request of defendant No, 1 the plaintiff extended various financial facilities in 1994 which facilities were enhanced subsequently. As security for repayment of the outstanding loans of defendant No,1, defendant No,2, being a promoter and shareholder of defendant No,1, extended his irrevocable personal guarantee, undertaking to pay the outstanding amount to the plaintiff. The financial facilities extended by the plaintiff were fully availed by defendant No 1 but the same were not repaid in time. The plaintiff repeatedly requested defendant No, 1 for repayment of the outstanding dues but all requests made by the plaintiff were ignored. It transpired that defendant No, 2 had left Dubai and came over to Karachi sometime in June 1995. In the meantime the Plaintiff through its representative approached defendant No, 2 for settlement of the dues of the plaintiff in Karachi, whereupon two properties situated in Karachi i.e, (1) Plot No, D-11, Block-5, Improvement Scheme No, 28, D.H.S. Karachi Measuring 1200 square yards and (2) Plot No, B-2 Haider Chamber, Improvement Scheme, Virjee Street, Jodia Bazar, Karachi, measuring 120 square yards, were mortgaged in favour of the plaintiff by way of collateral security. That despite promises and subsequent reminders from time to time the defendants failed to make payment of the outstanding amount to the plaintiff as such the plaintiff, through its Advocate, sent a notice dated 26-7-2004 demanding payment of the outstanding dues of the plaintiff. But the defendant No, 1 avoided to receive the notice which came back un-served. After adjustment of the amount of Dhs.
1.04 million which was under the lien of the bank, as on 11-10-2004 a total sum of Dhs. 2,678,195.27 was due and payable by the Defendants, which they have failed to pay. Hence this suit with the following prayers:--
(a) Decree for sale of property bearing Plot No, D-11, Block-5, Improvement Scheme No, 28, D.H.S. Karachi measuring 1200 square yards and Plot No, B-2 Haider Chamber, Improvement Scheme, Virjee Street, Jodia Bazar, Karachi measuring 120 square yards.
(b) Judgment and Decree in the sum of Dhs. 2,678,195.27 with interest at the rate of 12.25% against the defendants jointly and severally in favour of the plaintiff, from the date of filing of the suit until realization of the entire decretal amount;
(c) Costs of the suit;
(d) Any other relief or reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Summons were issued 'to the defendants through all modes, including publication in the daily Jang dated 7-3-2006 and vide diary of the Additional Registrar (OS) dated 9-2-2007 service was held good and since no written statement was filed by them during the prescribed period, the matter was fixed in Court for ex parte order. Vide order dated 7-5-2007 it was directed that the matter may proceed ex parte against the defendants as they have failed to file their written statements. Vide order dated 24-12-2007, the plaintiff was allowed time for filing ex parte proof. On 4-3-2008 Mr. Gerald Monteiro son of Francis Monteiro filed his affidavit-in-ex parte proof on behalf of the plaintiff but subsequently he expired and his such affidavit was discarded vide order 25-9- 2012 and the plaintiff was allowed to file fresh ex parte proof of any other witness. Thereafter, Mr. Waqar Gul Abdullah filed his affidavit in ex parte proof on behalf of the plaintiff and he was examined on 5-4-2013. He produced his affidavit-in-ex parte proof as Exh.P.W.1/3 and other documents as Exh.P.W.1/4 to P.W.1/5. He also produced some documents which were marked X and X-1 to X-11 as the originals of the same were not available with the plaintiff. Since the name of the plaintiff was changed to "Emirates NBD PJSC" therefore an application was filed for filing amended title which was allowed and the amended title was filed. Thereafter, on 10-10-2013 the case came up for final disposal when arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff were heard.
4. Learned counsel submits that after adjustment of the amount of Dhs.
1.04 million, which was under the lien of the bank, as on 11-10-2004 a total sum of Dhs. 2,678,195.27 was due and payable by the defendants, which they have failed to pay. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendants for recovery of the aforesaid amount. He stated that there is no rebuttal from the other side and, therefore, the averments in the plaint as well as the affidavitin-ex parte proof are to be treated to be correct. He, therefore, prayed that the suit may be decreed as prayed.
5. The plaintiff, in order to prove its claim, has filed the following documents along with the plaint.
(a) Account opening form dated 14-7-1993 as annexure P/1
(b) Resolution of Board of Directors of defendant No, 1 dated 1-7-1993 as annexure P/2.
(c) Sanction Advice dated 12-3-1994 as annexure P/3.
(d) Sanction Advice dated 12-3-1994 as annexure P/4.
(e) Personal Guarantee of defendant No, 2 dated 12-5-1994 as annexure P/5.
(f) Facilities Agreement dated 14-5-1994 as annexure P/6.
(g) Declaration of defendant No, 2 dated 23-2-1993 as annexure P/7.
(h) Copy of lease Deed dated 9-10-1992 as annexure P/8.
(i) Declaration of defendant No, 2 dated 8-7-1992 as annexure P/9.
(j) Copy of Lease Deed dated 20-4-1992 as annexure P/10.
(k) Letter of defendant No, 1 dated 24-11-1994 as annexure P/11.
(l) Legal Notice dated 26-7-2004 as annexure P/12.
(m) Statement of Account dated 11-10-2004 as annexure P/13.
6. The defendants have not filed any written statement to rebut the above documents. The plaintiff has succeeded in proving the assertions made in the plaint by filing affidavit in ex parte proof. Both the plaint in the suit as well as the affidavit in ex parte proof are on oath and there is nothing in rebuttal. Accordingly, I decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed.