' SHEZADA MAZHAR J. --- This suit has been filed by plaintiff against the defendant/Financial Institution under Section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, seeking redemption, cancellation of documents, declaration, renditions of accounts, permanent and perpetual injunction and recovery with profit realization of amount and costs.
2. It is the claim of the plaintiff company that due to default in fulfilling obligations by the defendant/Bank, the plaintiff has suffered not only a huge financial loss but also lost reputation and goodwill. It is also asserted that the so-called finance facilities were duly secured through creation of pledge of stock of sports related items including the raw material and finished items.
The goods were handed over to the defendant/Bank against the security of Rs, 229,305,000.00 &Rs, 46,607,000.00 which were stored under the lock and keys of the defendant/Bank. The said goods were not released to the plaintiff thus caused immense losses to the company. The total amount of damages/losses as claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint comes to Rs, 658,778,893/- on various accounts.
3. In response to the summons issued by this Court through all modes of service provided under the law, defendant/Financial Institution entered appearance and also filed leave to appear and defend the suit, controverting the assertions of plaintiff on legal as well as factual ground. It was specifically pleaded that plaintiffs committed contumacious, intentional and willful default towards discharge of their financial obligation. It was also specifically enumerated in the PLA that plaintiffs have filed vexatious suit without any locus standi and cause of action in absence and without annexing any copy of essential and documents including ledger and statement of accounts etc. In consonance with the provisions of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. It is further asserted that the plaintiff obtained various finance facilities from the defendant/bank and voluntarily executed agreements and documents acknowledging their liability. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff as a counter blast and afterthought to frustrate/delay the adjudication upon the bona fide claim of the defendant/Institution.
4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the facts and record appended with the suit. While hearing similar matters involving identical issues, this Court has identified and focused following noteworthy and material points to be determined and adjudicated upon:-
(i) This Court had ample power to apply Order VII, Rule 10/11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 at any stage of the proceeding,
(ii) a customer can file a suit for declaration, cancellation, redemption, permanent injunction and damages against at financial institution only against breach of an obligation arising out of law or an agreement,
(iii) the plaint must contain the detail of law or the agreement and also the breach of such law or the agreement,
(iv) The plaint must also be supported by customer's accounts or the statement of account as well as all documents which are necessary for establishing the claim of the customer.
(v) Only these damages can be claimed which arise out of the agreement of finance.
(vi) The remote and indirect damages cannot be claimed by the plaintiff customer on the basis of breach of obligation of not granting the finance facility.
(vii) This Court can reject the plaint in part.
5. Record reveals that only vague and general allegations have been endeavoured to be raised without substantiating the same through trustworthy documentary evidence. Only notional and hypothetical assertions have been raised without furnishing requisite and necessary details of agreement, where under, defendant/Bank was under obligation to provide sought for finances to the customer. Under Section 9(2) of the Ordinance, it is mandatory that the plaint must be supported by a statement of account. Perusal of the plaint and documents annexed therewith reveals that no statement of account has been attached to support the contents of the plaint. This deficiency goes to the root of the matter and the same cannot be proceeded against having been filed in violation of the mandatory requirements of Section 9 of FIO, 2001.
6. The claims as raised in the relevant paragraph are on account of damages suffered by the customer due to non-fulfillment of commitments and contractual obligations. However no-where in the plaint any reference has been given with regard to the sanctioned letter whose violation was committed by defendant/Bank. In the particular context of contractual breach, pecuniary compensation, rendition of account, damages and losses etc. Arising from dispute inter se the customer and Financial Institution, reliance is placed on Gulistan Textile Mills Ltd. v. Askari Bank Ltd.
And others (2013 CLD 2005) and my judgment of even date delivered in COS 82-2012.
7. For the above-mentioned facts and reasons incorporated in my judgment of even date passed in COS 82-2012, the plaintiff has not been able to show any bona fides, locus standi and cause of action to maintain the captioned plaint which is liable to be rejected. And upon rejection of the plaint, the instant suit is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.