' SHOAIB SAEED, J.---This RFA is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15-11-2006 passed by the learned Judge Banking Court, Multan, whereby the learned Judge decreed the suit for an amount of Rs, 17,62,495/65 along with cost of funds from the date of default till the realization of the entire decretal amount.
2. Brief facts of the case are that defendant-appellant No,1 a partnership firm acting through defendants-appellants Nos.2 to 4 sought for Cash Finance facility for Rs, 5.000 Million for the cotton season 2003-2004 on 13-11-2003. The finance facility was granted and appellants started availing it. In order to secure and acknowledge the said facility, appellants executed a number of charge documents in favour of the respondent bank. The finance facility was also secured by executing/signing memorandum of deposit of title deed in respect of properties three in number.
Title deeds and documents related thereto were also delivered to the bank. The appellants also executed personal guarantees in favour of the bank.
3. On failure to adjust the Cash Finance facility according to the agreed terms and conditions, at the request of the appellants the finance facility was converted into Demand Finance facility on 10- 11-2004 for the then defaulted amount of Rs, 16,53,729.49. It was agreed that Demand Finance facility shall be re-paid in three instalments as under:--
(a) First installment for Rs,3,54,000 to be paid on or before 31-12-2004.
(b) Second instalment for Rs,6,00,000 to be paid on or before 31-7-2005.
(c) Third instalment for Rs, 7,00,000 to be paid on 30-12-2005.
4. Three post-dated cheques were drawn in favour of the plaintiff-bank for adjustment of instalments. Accordingly cheques on due dates were presented but were dishonoured. The appellants thus failed to liquidate their liability.
5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the facility was converted into Demand Finance facility without the consent or request of the appellants. Mark up over mark up was charged by the bank. Principal amount stood fully adjusted. Cheques delivered to the respondents in lieu of Demand Finance facility were obtained through coercion. Blank documents and papers were got signed by the bank from the appellants. It was further argued that question of law and facts involved in the case were not properly appreciated and looked into by the banking court. Thus permission to appear and defend the suit was dismissed without recording of evidence.
6. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent contended that on failure of the appellants to adjust Cash Finance facility within the stipulated period, on their request the facility was converted into Demand Finance facility and in lieu thereof appellants executed-signed fresh charge and legal documents in favour of the plaintiff-bank. Obtaining of cheques through coercion was denied. It was also asserted that the appellants have failed to point out even a single wrong entry regarding debit and credit with respect to principal amount as well as mark up charged. The statement of account appended reflects true and accurate entries as required under the Banker Books Evidence Act. It was also averred that plethora of documents appended with the plaint were sufficient to substantiate and corroborate the averments of the plaint. Thus leave to defend the suit was rightly dismissed by the Banking Court.
7. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record with their able assistance.
8. Examination of the documents reveals that those were duly signed by the appellants which has not been denied. A Even otherwise, no illegality was pointed out in the credit and debit entries as reflected in the statement of accounts. It is settled principle of law that whoever gives blank documents provides the other person an opportunity to fill the same according to his own choice.
We have observed that the learned trial Court has examined/considered the documents on record and came to a right conclusion that the appellants have failed to make out its case for grant of leave to defend. Learned counsel for the appellants has not pointed out any misreading, non- reading of evidence, in the impugned judgment and decree. We have also thoroughly examined the impugned judgment and decree in which no illegality, 'irregularity or infirmity has been found, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree is upheld.
' In the light of what has been discussed above, this appeal having no merit is dismissed with no order as to costs.