AYESHA A. MALIK, J. --- This Execution First Appeal is directed against the order dated 03.07.2014 passed by the learned Judge Banking Court-H,
2. The facts of the case are is that Suit No, 490/1998 for recovery of Rs, 7,639,144/- with compensatory charges and liquidated damages was filed by the Respondent Bank was 10.12.1998 in 'which application for leave to defend was Ned by the Appellants and ultimately, the judgment and decree was passed on 04.05.1999. Against the said judgment and decree RFA No, 300/1999 was filed by the Appellants, which was decided on 15.4.2004. The Appellants then filed objection petition under Section 19(7) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 ("Ordinance") wherein the basic prayer of the Appellants .was that their pledged goods be delivered back to them and that the execution proceedings be dismissed with .a direction to the Respondent Bank to pay amount of the value of the goods to the Appellants.
3. The basic facts as per the objection petition are that the Appellants established three letters of credit with the Respondent Bank. The goods were imported into Pakistan and were kept in- bonded warehouse. The original documents were in the custody of the authority while the goods were pledged with the Respondent Bank. The goods were to be released through delivery order, however the Bank failed to do the needful causing loss to the Appellants. Learned counsel argued that the pledged goods consist of. 5940 bags, which were under the control of the Respondent Bank which should be released by the Respondent Bank immediately or else they should pay for the value of the goods.
4. The learned Judge Banking Court considered the arguments of the Appellants and dismissed the application on the ground that there is no pledged agreement between the Appellants and the Respondent Bank Further that the Appellants were not entitled to goods or any compensatory value. As per the impugned order, the goods were auctioned by the Custom Authority and the liability of the Custom Department was settled. Consequent to the auction the Respondent Bank has not received any amount and its decree dated 04.05.1999 still remains to be satisfied. The ground.; urged in the appeal are that the learned Judge Banking Court failed to appreciate that the pledge was created consequent to the import documents and that the Respondent Bank was required to return the pledged goods to the Appellants as per the understanding between the parties as the Appellants were then to sell the goods and through the delivery order repay the Respondent Bank. That the Bank has held the goods under pledged, which have more worth as narrated in the suit, hence they are not entitled to recover any of the amount from the Appellants.
Learned counsel further argued that in the leave to defend application filed by the Appellants it is specifically stated that the goods were imported and pledged with the Bank and are still in the custody of the Respondent Bank. That the Respondent Bank with mala-fide intention did not allow the goods to be delivered to the Appellants, which is contrary to the agreement arrived at between the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the Respondent Bank argued that there was no pledge credited between the parties and that three letters of credit were established by the Bank at the instance of the Appellants As per the letter of credit documents, the Appellants were required to pay the letter of credit amount alongwith compensatory charges to, the Bank and take delivery of the documents.
The Appellants did not retire the letter of credit documents nor did it deposit any amount with the respondent Bank hence the Bank was compelled to make foragainst the documents to the beneficiary abroad and the total amount is Rs 7,639,144/- Learned counsel further argued that the Appellants do not deny these facts in their leave to detend application and in fact a Forced Payment against Document ("PAD") was created by the Appellants. However, they evasively denied the same and insisted that there is some relationship of pledged goods between the parties Learned counsel further argued that goods were auctioned by the Custom Authority and delivered to the auction purchaser, payment was received by the Custom. Authority to settle all payment due to the. Custom Authority and no payment, has been made to the Respondent Bank. Learned counsel further argued that the judgment and decree was passed on 04.05.1999, which still needs to be stashes.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and find that no illegality is made out against the impugned order. Admittedly three letters of credit were established and the Appellants did not retire the letters of credit documents. In the leave to defend application, the Appellants have admitted this fact and have also admitted that the PAD amount was credited against the Appellants by the Respondent Bank., Learned counsel for the Appellants has stressed a great deal on the fact That imported goods were pledged in favour of the Bank, however, there is no agreement in support of this argument and the Appellants are merely 'relying on the fact that the Bank did not release the imported goods to the Appellants on account of non-payment by the Appellants In this regard, reliance is placed on letters dated 17.7.1996 issued by the Lahore Trading Company to Shahid Pul, Mughalpura, Lahore, dated 12.9 1996 issued by Z.N. Enterprises to Shahid Bonded Warehouse, Lal Mughalpura, Lahore and dated 4.1.2.1996 issued by the Bolan Bank Limited to Shahid Bond, Mohammad pura, Lalpul Daroga Wala Lahore which are totally misconceived.
Since there is no letter of pledge available on the record, the learned Judge Banking Court has rightly concluded that the Appellants were unable to bring any document on the record on the basis of which the pledge could be established Furthermore, as per the stance of the Bank and as stated in the impugned order the goods were auctioned by the Custom Authority, meaning thereby that the Bank has still not been able to satisfy its decree.
7. Under the circumstances. We are of the opinion that no illegality is made out in the impugned