' SHAMS MEHMOOD MIRZA, J.---This is a suit filed under section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (the Ordinance) seeking recovery of Rs,449,671,413.85 from defendants Nos.1 to 3 on account of various finance facilities granted to defendant No,1 and default by it of its payment obligations.
2. Brief facts of the case are that defendant No,1 was availing various finance facilities from the plaintiff bank which were lastly renewed through sanction letter dated 28.04.2010. The said finance facilities included Demand Finance (DF-I) facility in the sum of Rs,101.500 Million, Running Finance
(RF) facility of Rs,60 Million, Cash Finance (CF) of Rs,200 Million and Demand Finance (DF-II) facility of Rs,114.500 Million. DF-I and DF-II facilities were repayable in installments with expiry on September and October 2014 respectively whereas the RF and CF facilities were valid up to 31.01.2011. As the defendants failed to repay the mount in the time and manner agreed between the parties, which constrained the plaintiff bank to file this suit.
3. Pursuant to summons issued by this Court defendants Nos.1 to 3 entered appearance and filed their joint application for leave to defend bearing PLA No,09 of 2015.
4. Learned counsel for defendants Nos.1 to 3 submitted that RF and CF facilities were further extended from 31.01.2011 to 31.08.2011 on monthly basis for which period mark up has illegally been charged by plaintiff bank. It was further submitted that extensions in the period of finance for RF and CF facilities did not entitle the plaintiff bank to charge mark up for the said period. Certain debit entries in the statements of accounts of CF, DF-I and DF-II facilities were also challenged on the ground that the credit thereof was not made in the current account.
4(sic.) Learned counsel for the plaintiff bank submitted that the plaintiff bank is entitled to charge mark up for the extensions granted in CF and RF facilities from 31.01.2011 to 31.08.2011. He, however, stated that the bank shall have no objection in case the mark up for the said period is excluded from the suit claim.
5. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the defendants placed on record a handwritten chart containing the entries of CF, RF and DF-II facilities and submitted that the amounts thereof were not reflected in the current account. The entries of the CF and RF facilities as mentioned in the said chart pertained to the period 31.03.2008 to 17.09.2009. The finance facilities were lastly renewed on 28.04.2010 and the sanction letter issued in this regard was accepted by defendants by putting their signatures thereon. The said sanction letter also contained the repayment schedule of DF-I and DF-II facilities and in this manner the amounts of the said finance facilities stood admitted by the defendants. The defendants also executed the relevant finance documents including their personal guarantees. The defendants sought the renewal of the finance facilities through offer letter dated 22.01.2010 which was accompanied by a board resolution. In the said letter defendant No,1 again admitted the amount of the finance facilities. In the Borrower's fact sheet submitted by defendant No,1, the finance facilities and the amounts due thereunder were once against categorically admitted. The application for leave to defend filed by the defendants did not impugn any amount of DF-II facility. There are sufficient admissions of liability available on the record coupled with the fact that the necessary requirements of section 10 of the Ordinance were not met with, which does not entitle the defendants to object to the entries mentioned in the handwritten chart submitted by the defendant's counsel. The claim of the plaintiff bank is duly substantiated from the documents available son the record as well as the statements of accounts which have been prepared in accordance with law. ##TE#
6. The plaintiff's counsel has also placed on record a chart showing the amounts due front the defendants after excluding the amounts of mark up charged by the plaintiff bank on CF and RF facilities for the period 31.01.2011 to 31.08.2011 according to which the total recoverable amount comes to Rs,432,983,276.42. It is also observed that the plaintiff bank has charged mark up on DF-I and DF-II facilities up to 01.08.2011 when default was committed by the defendants although the expiry period of the said facilities was September 2014 and October 2015 respectively.
7. In the result, the application for leave to defend filed by the defendants is dismissed for failing to raise any substantial question of fact. The suit filed by the plaintiff is accordingly decreed in its favour and against defendants Nos.l to 3, jointly and severally, in the sum of Rs,432,983,276.42 together with costs of funds as contemplated by section 3 of the Ordinance. The plaintiff bank shall be entitled to the costs of funds in case of RF and CF facilities from 01.02.2011 and in case of DF-I and DF-II facilities are from 01.08.2011. Costs of the suit are also granted.