SHAMS MEHMOOD MIRZA, J.---This regular first appeal challenges regular judgment and decree dated 26.03.2013 passed by Banking Court, Multan in the suit filed by respondent No.1 bank.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs.7,588,656/- against the appellants and respondents Nos.2 and 3 alleging therein that a bank guarantee 'facility in the sum of Rs.1,000,000/- was initially allowed on 30.08.2005. At the request of the appellant and respondents Nos.2 and 3, respondent No.1 bank vide offer letter dated 17.03.2006 enhanced the amount of the bank guarantee facility from Rs.1,000,000/- to Rs.5,000,000/- and. also granted a fresh running finance facility in the sum of Rs.0.800 Million. In terms bank guarantee facility, a bank guarantee bearing No.000011/2006 amounting to Rs.5,000,000/- was issued on 04.12.2006 with expiry on 03.12.2007 in favour of Messrs Pak China Chemical Lahore. At the request of the appellants and respondents Nos.2 and 3, respondent No.1 bank further renewed the Bank guarantee facility and enhanced the amount of running finance facility from Rs.0.80 Million to Rs.1.500 Million vide offer letter dated 04.09.2006. The amount of bank guarantee facility was again enhanced from Rs.5 Million to Rs.6 Million and the running finance facility was renewed vide offer letter dated 09.03.2007. The said facilities was once again renewed through offer letter dated 17.12.2007. The finance facilities were lastly renewed through facility offer letter dated 14.01.2009 with expiry on 31.08.2009. Under the last renewal, respondent No.1 bank issued three bank guarantees in favour of Messrs Pak China Chemicals, Messrs Fauji Fertilizer Company Limited and Messrs WeIcome Chemicals Limited with expiry on 16.01.2010, 31.12.2009 and 14.01.2010 respectively. The said bank guarantees were enchased on their due dates but the appellants failed to repay the amounts there under.
3. The appellants and respondent No.4 contested the suit by filing their application for leave to defend wherein it was alleged that the statements of accounts are sketchy and ambiguous; that mark up has been charged for the period when there was no finance agreement in existence; that an amount of Rs.1,499,795/- has unauthorizedly been debited on 19.06.2009.
4. The banking court after hearing the arguments dismissed both the applications for leave to defend filed by the appellants and respondent No.4 and decreed the suit filed by respondent No.1 in the sum of Rs.6,315,736/-. While passing the judgment and decree the amount of mark up on the bank guarantee facility claimed by respondent No.1 bank was disallowed whereas only an amount of Rs.21,841/- was allowed on the running finance facility being the mark up chargeable within the contractual period.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the stance taken by the appellants in their application for leave to defend whereas learned counsel for respondent No.1 bank supported the judgment rendered by the banking court.
6. The arguments of the counsel for the parties have been heard and the record of the banking Court has been perused.
7. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants did not seriously contest the claim of respondent No.1 bank under the Bank guarantee facility. He, however, stated that respondent No.1 bank has charged mark up under the running finance facility during the period when there was no finance agreement executed between the parties. This assertion does not have any valid basis in view of the fact that respondent No.1 bank had relied upon finance agreements dated 17.03.2006 and 01.09.2008 in respect of the running finance facility. Finance agreement dated 17.03.2006 was executed when running finance facility was initially granted to the appellants whereas finance agreement dated 01.09.2008 was executed under the last renewal. Once renewal of a finance facility takes place, the bank is not required to rely upon the previous agreements or even the statement of account. (See Habib Bank Limited v. Taj Textile Mills Limited). In this view of the matter, the appellants cannot agitate the charging of mark up by respondent No.1 bank. Be that as it may, the request letters of the appellants seeking grant/renewal of the running finance facility are available on the record as also the offer letters issued by respondent No.1 bank which were duly signed by the appellants. Respondent No.1 bank has also relied upon the balance sheets signed by the appellants which show that the appellants have obtained loans in the sum of Rs.7.500 Million. As regard the entry of Rs.1,499,795/- it was explained by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 bank that the appellants had deposited a cheque of Rs.3,030,000/- in the current account which was sent to National Bank of Pakistan for clearing. As per the I.T. System, a sum of Rs.1,499,795/- was debited to the current account and credited in the running finance account.
However, as the said cheque was dishonoredaccordingly the entry of Rs.1,499,795/- was reversed from the running finance account and the current account simultaneously on 19.06.2009. We have perused the record and find that the explanation given by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 bank is substantiated by the statement of current account and the running finance account.
8. In the circumstances, no case has been made out for interference in the judgment rendered by the banking court. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.