SHAMS MEHMOOD MIRZA, J.---The defendants were ordered to be summoned through order dated 05.12.2017. Office report states that despite service through all prescribed modes in terms of section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, the defendants have not entered appearance and filed their application for leave to defend within the stipulated period of 30 days.
2. Section 10 of the Ordinance stipulates that if the defendants do not file their application for leave to defend despite service of summons, the allegations of fact in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and the Banking Court may pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff on the basis thereof.
3. Notwithstanding the fact that the defendants have not filed any application for leave to defend, this Court has itself gone through the record to satisfy itself regarding the veracity of the claim put forward by the plaintiff bank.
4. The plaintiff bank has instituted this suit against the defendants seeking recovery of Rs,165,146,610.38 on account of two finance facilities. The record reflects that the relationship of the parties started when letter of credit facility was sanctioned on 22.10.2013. Subsequently, the defendants continued availing various finance facilities from the plaintiff bank. Lastly, the defendants availed, inter alia, Cash Finance and Running Finance facilities through plaintiff bank's offer letter dated 27.11.2015. Pursuant to the grant of the finance facilities, the defendants executed various finance documents, which are available on the record. In order to secure the plaintiff bank, defendant No,1 company executed its mortgage charge over its property/undertaking. Defendants Nos,2 and 3 also executed their personal guarantees in favour of the plaintiff bank. The statements of accounts of the finance facilities have been perused which have been prepared in accordance with law and reflect the amounts advanced to defendant No,1 company from time to time under the finance facilities. It has, however, been noticed that the expiry of the finance facilities according to the finance agreements was 30.09.2016 but the plaintiff bank has charged mark up beyond the expiry period thereof. Learned counsel for the plaintiff bank frankly concedes this position and has no objection if mark up charged beyond the expiry period is excluded from the suit claim. The plaintiff bank is only entitled to charge an amount of Rs,5,134,923.34 and Rs,1,007,487.13 as mark up under Cash Finance and Running Finance facilities respectively. Resultantly, mark up charged beyond this amount is excluded from the suit claim. According to the statements of accounts, an amount of Rs,1.22,386,000/- is due as principal under the Cash Finance facility and an amount of Rs,24,639,089.13 is due as principal under the Running Finance facility.
5. As the defendants have failed to file the application for leave to defend, the suit filed by thi plaintiff bank is liable to be decreed. In the result, a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendants, jointly and severally, in the sum of Rs,153,167,500.13 together with costs of funds in terms of section 3 of the Ordinance. Costs B of the suit are also granted.
6. The suit is converted into execution proceedings. The office shall prepare a separate file for execution of the decree and number it accordingly. The plaintiff bank is directed to file the Fard Taaliqa. Now to come up for hearing on 23.10.2018.