This regular first appeal is filed under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 ( the Ordinance ) challenging judgment and decree dated 04.1 1.2015 passed by the banking court.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants obtained a Running Finance (RF) facility in the sum of Rs.7.5 Million from the respondent bank. The said facility was renewed on yearly basis with last renewal on 27.12.2013.
As the appellants failed to repay the amount of the finance facility up to the date of expiry , the respondent bank was constrained to file the suit for recovery of Rs.8,807,428/-. The appellants filed their application for leave to defend.
The defense raised by the appellants did not find favour with the banking court which dismissed the said application and passed judgment and decree in favour of respondent bank on 04.1 1.2015.
3. Learned counsel submits that the appellants did not apply for the renewal of the finance facility for the year 2013 and that the entire finance facility had been repaid in the year 2013 while the loan was parked at Shah Rukn-e- Alam Branch of the respondent bank.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent bank, on the other hand, supports the judgment and decree passed by the banking court.
5. Arguments heard, record perused.
6. The RF facility was renewed vide offer letter dated 27.12.2013 which contained the detailed terms and conditions of the said facility . This facility offer letter was shown to have been accepted by the appellants. The appellants also executed the finance documents in respect of the said renewal. The appellants did not dispute their signatures appearing on the said documents. The allegation that the appellants had paid the finance facility in its entirety is not borne out from the record. The appellants also failed to fulfill the requirements of section 10 of the Ordinance in as much as the amount of repayments and the dates thereof were not mentioned in the application for leave to defend. The appellants furthermore did not furnish any proof of such repayments. The failure of the appellants to fulfill the requirements of section 10 of the Ordinance would attract the penal consequence of dismissal of their application for leave to defend (see Appollo T extile Mills Limited v . Soneri Bank Limited 2012 CLD 337 ).
7. In the result, the appellants have failed to raise any ground for interference in the judgment and decree passed by the banking court. This appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.