' M. SOHAIL IQBAL BHATTI, J. --- Through this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 13.01.2010 passed by learned Judge Banking Court No, IV, Lahore through which the suit of the respondent/plaintiff bank was decreed to the tune of Rs, 1,79,65,670/- along with cost of suit and cost of funds from the date of default i,e, 3 1.05.2008.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff-bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs, 20,239,439.49 against the appellants/defendants. In pursuance to the notices issued to the defendants/appellants in terms of Section 9(5) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances)
Ordinance, 2001, the appellants/defendants appeared and filed an application for leave to defend the suit in terms of Section 10 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001.
The learned Judge Banking Court after dismissing the application for leave to defend the suit filed by the defendants/appellants, through impugned judgment and decree, decreed the suit to the tune of Rs, 1,79,65,670/- in favour of the respondent/plaintiff bank and against the defendants/appellants, hence this appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants while supporting his contentions argued that although the suit has been filed by the Manager of respondent/plaintiff bank but no proof has been attached with the plaint. He further argued that the suit has been filed in violation to the mandatory provisions of Section 9(3) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances)
Ordinance, 2001. He further argued that the statement of account did not disclose the each and every debit and credit entry in accordance with the Ledger and other books of the banks. He further objected upon the statement of accounts that the same was not supported by ledger books and other supported documents. He further argued that learned Judge Banking Court did not decide the question raised in application for leave to appear and defend the suit that the documents have not been signed by the appellants/defendants. The learned counsel placed his reliance upon M/s. Dhrala Oil Mills Tatepur, Multan through its Partners and 4 others v. Bank of Punjab, Multan through Branch Manager (PLJ 2014 Lahore 81 (D.B).
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff bank vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellants and supported the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.01.2010. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff bank further argued that mere denial of execution of documents would not be a substantial question of law or fact within the meaning of Section 10(8) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 if otherwise the availing of finance facility is proved or has not been denied. It has been further argued that the application for leave to appear and defend the suit has been drafted in violation of Section 10(3), (4) and (5) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 which entails penal consequences and liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff bank relied upon Muhammad Ashraf v. Habib Bank Limited (2005 CLD 1367 [Peshawar]) and Rubina Jamshed v. United Bank Limited (2005 CLD 50 [Lahore]).
5. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. As regards the filing of suit through the manager of the bank is concerned, suffice it to observe that the suit has been filed by the Manager of the bank through designation and stamp affixed upon the plaint clearly reveals that the signing authority of the plaint is the Manager of the concerned branch. On the other hand, the defendants/appellants have failed to produce any document, which shows that at the time of filing of suit, some other individual was holding the office of branch. Manager. Therefore, we are of the view that the plaint had been rightly presented within the meanings of Section 9(1) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 by the branch manager.
7. Though the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants took a serious exception to validity of the statement of accounts attached with the plaint, but on perusal of the statement of accounts, it transpires that the statement of accounts is a computer generated document and under the provisions of Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 a computer generated document carried presumption of truth attached therewith. According to the provisions of Section 3 of the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002, electronically generated document would not require any signature.
By virtue of Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 a legal cover has been provided to the electronic forms by categorizing that their legal recognition and admissibility etc. Would not be called in question, if the same has not been attested by any witness, in case the same is in the electronic form. We observe that rapid changes have occurred in the recent years as old and conventional system of banking has been done away to a great extent. In spite of having conventional and old method banking system latest technology has taken over by way of introduction of electronic and digital methods. The statement of accounts attached with the plaint is a true picture of loan facility obtained by the defendants and cannot be called as an invalid statement of account. In this regard, reliance is placed upon Habib Metropolitan Bank Ltd. v. Mian Abdul Jabber Gihllin and another (2013 CLD 88 [Sindh]j.
' It has been further observed by us that the statement of account attached with the plaint duly reflect all the credit and debit entries. It is worth mentioning that all the debit entries are a result of issuance of cheque which have been received in clearance by the respondent bank and thus it cannot be said that the statement of account is defective falling within the mischief of Section 9(3) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The learned counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any single entry in the statement of accounts, which is not corroborated; as observed above, as all the debit entries have been made through cheques cleared by the respondent bank. Even otherwise, the statement of account is duly certified under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891.
8. We have observed that the defendants/appellants have not denied the availing of finance facility as in reply to para-10 of the plaint, it has been specifically admitted that various amounts were paid to satisfy the loan amount but deposit receipts were not provided to the appellants. The amounts paid by the appellants are duly reflected in the statement of accounts; but the appellants have failed to substantiate their claim regarding repayments and non provision of deposit receipts through any documentary proof thus it cannot be relied upon.
9. We are of the considered view that while filing an application for leave to defend the suit, the defendants are under an obligation to specifically mention the amount of finance availed; the amounts paid back by the defendant to the financial institution and the dates of payments. All these facts regarding payments are to be substantiated by annexing the supporting documents. In case, the application for leave to defend the suit does not comply with the requirements of sub- sections (3) and (4) of Section 10 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, the same shall be rejected unless sufficient cause for non- compliance with these mandatory provisions of law are disclosed. Reliance is placed on United Bank Limited v. Progas Pakistan Limited (2010 CLD 828 [Karachi]), NIB Bank Limited v. Taha Spinning Mills Limited and others (2010 CLD 635 [Karachi]), Habib Bank Ltd. v. Paragon Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Chief Executive and 5 others (2009 CLD 1346 [Karachi]), H.B,L. v. Crescent Softwear Products (Pvt.) Ltd. (2009 CLD 412 [Lahore]), Faysal Bank Limited v. Genertech Pakistan Ltd. And 6 others (2009 CLD 856 [Lahore]), Habib Bank Limited v. Messrs SABCQS (Pvt.) (2006 CLD 244 [Karachi]), Shahid Farooq Sheikh v. Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited through Manager (2005 CLD 1489 [Lahore]), Zeeshan Energy Ltd. And 2 others v.
Faisal Bank Ltd. (2004 CLD 1741) [Lahore] and (2012 CLD 337 Apollo Textile Mills Ltd. And others v.
Soneri Bank Ltd. [Supreme Court of Pakistan]).
10. As far the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that documents have not been executed/signed by the appellants, suffice is to observe that, mere denial of execution of the charge documents is not a substantial question of law or fact, especially in the circumstances when the availing of finance facility has not been denied. In the present case, the offer letter dated 19.01.2007 has been signed by the Managing Partner of the firm and the charge documents including agreement for financing, demand promissory note, letter of continuity and letter of hypothecation have been signed by the borrowers and in consideration thereof, the personal guarantees have been executed by the appellants and registered mortgage deeds along with memorandum of deposit of title deeds are also available. The original title documents have also been submitted with the respondent bank, therefore, the argument regarding non execution of guarantees or other charge documents is without any force. Reliance in this regard is placed on 2009 CLD 622 where this Court has held that mere evasive denial regarding non execution of documents was riot plausible defence within the parameters of law.
11. Before parting with this judgment, we are also inclined to observe that appellants No, 1 and 3 filed C.M. No, 1-C of 2014 for impleading the legal heirs of appellant No, 2/Malik Israr Hussain in the array of respondents to the present appeal, we may refer to the provisions of Order XXII, Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code which provides that where there are more plaintiffs or defendants then one and any of them dies during the proceedings, the proceedings shall continue. Moreover, we further observe that in the present case, one of the appellants passed away and his legal heirs at the most may be impleaded as appellants and not in the array of respondents because the appellants have not claimed any relief against the legal heirs of the appellant No, 2, so this CM No, 1-C/2014 being misconceived is dismissed.
12. For what has been discussed above, this appeal has no merits and the same is dismissed.