AYESHA A. MALIK, J. --- This Regular First Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2015 in COS No, 126/2011 by the learned Single Judge of this Court.
2. The basic facts of the case are that a suit for recovery of Rs, 163,152,334.39 was filed by Respondent No, 1 National Bank of Pakistan against the Appellants under Section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 ("Ordinance") on the basis of facilities availed by the Appellants and not repaid. In terms of the suit filed the facilities for which the default is alleged was CF (pledge) limit for Rs, 130 Million, CF (Hypothecation) limit for Rs, 40 Million, Demand Finance limit of Rs, 84 Million, FAPC facility for Rs, 50 Million and Foreign Currency (FE-25) loan for Rs, 200 Million. Finance agreements and security documents were filed alongwith the plaint.
Defendants No, 1, 3, 5 and 7 to 9 filed their PLA whereafter the case was heard and ultimately decreed against the Appellants.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellants raised several grounds before the Court on the basis of which the impugned judgment has been challenged. The first ground of the learned counsel was that the suit was barred by limitation as the facilities expired on 31.05.2008 whereas the suit was filed on 12.09.2011. It is the Appellant's case that the suit should have been filed within three years time of the expiry of the facilities failing which it is beyond the period of limitation. Learned counsel for the Respondent Bank stated that all the facilities were renewed from time to time and that the last payment made by the Respondents was on 20.08.2010 whereafter they failed to make any further payment, hence given the default of the Appellants, the suit was filed within time on 12.09.2011.
4. On this issue, the impugned judgment finds that the last payment made by the Appellants was on 23.07.2010 and 20.09.2010, hence the suit was, filed within time. In terms of the record, renewal of all working capital limits was issued on 30.05.2007 alongwith renewal of the demand finance facility. The record shows that the last deposit was made on 20.08.2010, which has not been denied by the Appellants. The statement of account shows that the Appellants were making payments after 30.05.2007 up and until 20.07.2010, hence the stance of the Appellants that the limitation will start from the date of expiry being 30.05.2007 is misconceived as the Appellants were acting under the renewal advise from 20:08.2007 uptil 20.09.2010. Hence no illegality is made out on this ground.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellants also raised several objections against the statement of account filed by the Respondent Bank that it is not a system generated statement of account, that a certificate statement as per the Bankers Book Evidence Act, 1891 ("Act") is not given and that it is not proof of liability. We have gone through the record and find that the statement of account appended with the suit has been filed in accordance with law. It bears the certification and the signatures that are required under the Act. Furthermore, in terms of the PLA filed, no specific entry has been challenged nor do the Appellants deny repayment of the amount deposited in the account of the Respondent Bank against various facilities. Learned counsel for the Appellants also argued that the statement of account should have been of the main market branch of the Bank and the' Appellants do not know which account is reflected in the statement of account. Counsel for the Respondents explained that the Appellant's accounts were transferred from AGO Model Branch Lahore to Special Assets Management Division (North), 69/2 Abid Majeed Road, Lahore Cantt. on account of the outstanding liability as of 31.08,2010. Letter dated 12.10.2010 is available on the file and substantiates the case of the Respondents. The Appellants were duly informed of the transfer and this fact has not been denied by the Appellants. In fact, the record shows that several letters have been issued to the Appellants in this regard. The record also shows that the Appellants have issued several letters for renewal of the facilities, which clearly indicates that the disbursement for the loan and the availment of the facility is not denied by the Appellants. Learned counsel for the Appellants argued with reference to the disbursement of the facilities and the finance agreement, however, these arguments are without basis especially since there are letters available on the file by the Appellants seeking renewal of the facilities including the packing facility.
There are also letters on the record showing payment of mark-up being made by the Appellants.
The Appellants issued letter dated 22.03.2007 requesting renewal of six facilities offering additional securities, where applicable. Letter dated 23.03.2007 shows payment of outstanding mark-up offered by the Appellants and letter dated 27.04.2007 shows payment of principle instalment by the Appellants. In the same way there are several letters issued by the Appellants, showing payment of mark-up and instalments. These letters are not denied by the Appellants and are corroborated with the statement of account. In April, 2008 Appellants also wrote to the Bank regarding adjustment of Rs, 3 Million towards outstanding amounts. Under the circumstances the grounds raised by the appellants alongwith the cited cases, as given in the written arguments by the counsel have no merit.
6. It was also argued that additional documents were filed with the replication which in itself entitles the Appellants to unconditional leave. The impugned judgment finds that statement of accounts filed with the replication are identical to those filed with the suit, hence there was no reason to grant leave. We have gone through the record and find that the statement of account filed is of the current account which is no way prejudices the rights of the Appellants. There is no new information in the current account statement and as such does not entitle the Appellants to unconditional grant of leave. Hence no illegality is made out.
7. Finally, learned counsel for the Appellants argued that the judgment has been passed against Sheikh Muhammad Farooq, who died on 03.04.2007. Learned counsel for the Appellants argued that since he died before filing of the suit, the suit against Sheikh Muhammad Farooq has abated.
This contention of the learned counsel is totally misconceived as the loan was primarily taken by Appellant No, 1 being the Company and was guaranteed by Appellants No, 2 to 7 and Sheikh Muhammad Farooq was also one of the guarantors. Since the suit was filed against the Company alongwith several defendants, the suit did not abate. The findings of the learned Single Judge on this issue are without exception. Hence no illegality is made out.
8. Under the circumstances, no case for interference is made out. This RFA is dismissed.