' This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15-4-2010 passed by the learned Judge, Banking Court No.III, Multan whereby the suit filed by the respondent bank for recovery of Rs.12,13,341/90 was decreed and the application filed by the appellant under section 10 f the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 for leave to defend, was dismissed.
2. The respondent bank instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs.12,13,341/90 advanced to the appellant on the basis f lease rental charges of a leased vehicle. The appellant to contest the suit, filed an application for leave to defend, wherein it was stated, that the vehicle in question was snatched on 21-10-2005 by the dacoits on the way from Lahore to Multan, for which an FIR was lodged with the Police; that a claim was also lodged with the insurance company which was turned down; that the statement of accounts was not attached with. The suit, therefore, the appellant be allowed to contest the suit.
3. The application was dismissed and the suit was decreed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments submitted, that the amount of Mark-up of Rs.3,00,338/90 is not payable by the appellant as the same has already been recovered by the bank in monthly installments and secondly, that the appellant is entitled to recover the amount of security of Rs.2,37,800 lying with the bank.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf f the respondent bank stated that the amount of mark-up be deleted from the decretal amount and as regards the security amount, the learned counsel submits, that it can only be returned to the appellant in case the appellant hands over the vehicle to the bank. The learned counsel also referred to clauses Nos.
11.5 and 3.5 of the lease agreement which disentitle the appellant to ask for return of the security amount.
6. After hearing the arguments f the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion, that the learned Banking Court has rightly decreed the suit and in appeal, the respondent bank has frankly conceded to the claim f appellant regarding the amount of mark-up, already recovered by the bank in monthly installments. As regards the security amount, according to the terms of the lease agreement, the appellant is not entitled to ask for the said amount.
7. We see no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Banking Judge, therefore, the appeal in hand is dismissed. However, the decree awarded in favour of the bank shall be modified by excluding only the mark-up amount of Rs.3,00,338/90. No order as to costs.