AYESHA A. MALIK, J.--- This appeal under Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 ("F10") is directed against judgment and decree dated 26.6.2012 passed by the Judge Banking Court-II, Faisalabad.
2. The facts of the case are that a suit for recovery of Rs. 77,19,266.94/- was filed by the Respondent Bank against the Appellants on 6.3.2010. The Appellants filed application for leave to defend the suit , whereas the Respondent bank also filed replication as per requirement of the law. The learned Banking Court vide ex parte impugned judgment and decree dated 26.6.2012 decreed the suit in favour of the Respondent Bank and against the Appellants in the amount of Rs. 77,19,266.94/- along with costs of the suit from the date of institution of suit. Learned counsel for the Appellants argued that the impugned judgment is a nonspeaking order; that it is against the record and that it is not considered the case of the Appellants.
3. Learned counsel for the Respondent Bank has opposed the contentions of the Appellant and supports the impugned judgment as being well-reasoned.
4. In terms of the record, the availing of finance facility is not denied by the Appellants. The impugned judgment finds that no substantial question of law and facts has been raised by the Appellants which is pre-condition for the acceptance of the petition filed by the Appellants before the learned Banking Court. The impugned judgment considered all the facts and thereafter decreed the suit of the Bank. However the learned Banking Court disallowed the mark-up after expiry date that is 31.1.2010 being not permissible under the law. So far as the grievance of the Appellants with respect to the claim of mark-up is concerned, there is no merit in the same as the Appellants' contention was accepted and mark-up beyond the expiry period was not granted.
Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that no illegality has been made out in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Banking Court.
5. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out. Appeal is dismissed.