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.326,843,390.34 from defendants No.1 to 8 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 defendants have been availing various finance facilities from the plaintiff bank for a number of years. Lastly, the finance facilities, which are the subject matter of the present suit, were renewed through plaintiff banks letter dated 28.12.2012 with expiry on 31.12.2013.
The defendants executed various finance documents under the said finance facilities as detailed in the plaint. As the defendants committed default in their repayment obligations under the said finance facilities, the plaintiff bank was constrained to file the present suit.
3. In pursuance of the summons issued by this Court, defendants Nos.1 to 3, 6 to 8 entered appearance and filed their joint application for leave to defend bearing P.L.A. No.12 of 2015 (the PLA).
Defendants Nos.4 and 5 have not filed any application for leave to defend and are accordingly proceeded against ex parte.
4. Learned counsel for the contesting defendants submitted that the suit has not been filed by a duly authorized person; that defendants Nos.4, 5 and 8 were no more directors at the time of the grant of the finance facilities and as such their names are liable to be deleted from the array of the defendants; that defendants were made to sign blank documents which have been utilized by the plaintiff bank for the present suit; that the statements of accounts have not been prepared in accordance with law; that term loan (TL-2) for Rs.116.800 Million was liable to be repaid in installments with expiry on 28.07.2016 but the plaintiff bank made earlier adjustments without the consent of the defendants; and the plaintiff bank recovered an amount of Rs.7,780,451/- under CF facility by unilaterally drawing down the facility.
5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff bank, on the other hand, submitted that the suit claim is duly substantiated from the documents available on the record and through admissions contained in audited accounts of defendant No. 1.
6. Arguments heard and record perused.
7. The suit has been instituted by the plaintiff bank through its officers holding power of attorneys.
The instruments of the attorneys are appended with the suit. Section 9 of the Ordinance empowers three categories of persons to file a suit (a) the branch manager (b) an officer authorized by a power of attorney and (c) an officer who is otherwise authorized by a financial institution. It is quite clear that an officer of a financial institution who holds a power of attorney in his favour need not append anything else other than the said power of attorney to demonstrate his authority to 'institute the suit under section 9 of the Ordinance. Had it not been so, section 9 of the Ordinance would have required production of further documents other than the power of attorney by the attorney holder to demonstrate the authorization of the person executing the power of attorney.
Under section 9 of the Ordinance, an officer of the financial institution holding a power of attorney is the designated person to file suits on its behalf. The suit of the plaintiff bank has, thus, competently been filed.
8. The plaintiff bank has narrated the entire transactional history of the finance facilities starting from 2007-2008 in the plaint and has also appended all the relevant documents including the offer letters issued from time to time. These offer letters contained the detailed terms and conditions of the finance facilities. Same is the case with the last renewal of the finance facilities which was conveyed through plaintiffs bank letter dated 28.12.2012 as such there is no force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the defendant that blank documents were utilized by the plaintiff bank.
9. The statements of accounts of the finance facilities relied upon by the plaintiff bank have been perused which have been prepared in accordance with the provisions of Bankers' Book Evidence Act, 1891 and the ratio of judgment report as The Bank of Punjab v. Messrs Khan Unique Developers 2016 CLD 29. Be that as it may, the defendants have failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 10 of the Ordinance and have not impugned a single entry contained in the statements of accounts. The liability under the various finance facilities even otherwise is admitted by defendant No.1 in its audited accounts for the years 2013 and 2014. There is, therefore, no merit in the objection raised in respect of the statements of the accounts as well as the suit claim.
10. In regard to the allegation of pre-mature adjustment of TL-2 facility, suffice it to state that the said facility is outstanding and amounts thereunder have been claimed by the plaintiff bank to the present suit. Similarly the recovery of mark up of Rs.7,780,451/- under CF facility was rightly made by debiting the account as the said amount was due from the defendants.
11. The defendants have failed to raise any dispute on facts requiring recording of evidence for its resolution and have also not fulfilled the mandatory requirements of section 10 of the Ordinance.
The liability of the defendants is established from the documents available on the record including the admissions contained in the audited accounts of defendant No.1 . The learned counsel for plaintiff bank, however, on instructions does not press the claim against defendants Nos.4, 5 and 7.
Their names are accordingly directed to be deleted from the array of defendants. The application for leave to defend filed by the defendants is accordingly dismissed.
12. The suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby decreed in its favour and against defendants Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 8, jointly and severally, in the sum of Rs.326,843,390.34 together with the costs of funds as contemplated by section 3 of the Ordinance. Costs of the suit are also granted.