SHAKEEL AHMAD, J.--- The appellant has assailed the judgment and decree dated 23.9.2014 of the learned Judge, Banking Court-I, Peshawar , whereby the appellant/defendant was refused leave to appear and defend the suit, with the result that the respondent/plaintif f Bank was granted decree in the sum of Rs.13452/- with cost of funds from the date of filing of suit, i.e, 18.6.2013 till the date of realization.
2. The facts of the case, the brief, are that National Bank of Pakistan Limited through its Manager brought a suit against the appellant/defendant under the Financial Institutions (recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 for recovery of Rs.161425/- against cash finance facility extended to the appellant along with cost of fund/liquidated damages @ Rs. 20 % mark up till realization of payment of loan. On response to the request of appellant he was allowed loan of Rs.92000 on markup basis for productions/development of his lands, this loan was secured by under taking and guarantee duly signed and thumb impressed by the appellant as well as defendant on 2 & 3 being sureties and guarantors of the appellant. However , the appellant failed to repay the full outstanding cash finance facility and an amount of Rs.161425/- remained unadjusted, inspite of the repeated demand and reminders.
Consequently , the respondent/Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs.161425/- along with cost of funds/liquidated damages @ 20 % and markup till realization of payment of loan.
3. After service of summons, the appellant / defendant put his appearance, filed application for leave to appear and defend the suit, on 23.9.2013, which was replied by the respondent/Bank. However , the learned trial court after considering the contents of the applicatio n as well as its reply was not persuaded to grant leave to defend the suit and decreed the suit in favour of responde nt/Bank as stated above. The above referred judgment and decree of the learned trial court has been impugned in this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that no financial facility was ever extended to the appellant; the documents appended with the plaint are forged and fictitious. He next argued that interest being repugnant to the injunctions of Islam is void and cannot be granted.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent submitted that Bank documents are genuine and no unauthorized or fake entries had been made therein. He next submitted that plea of non-extension of loan and enclosure of forged and fictitious documents with the plaint was neither taken in the petition for leave to defend nor urged before the learned trial court, therefore, this plea cannot be agitated at this stage. He lastly submitted that appellant has not disclosed any plausible ground for grant of leave to defend the suit and prayed for dismissal of appeal.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
7. Perusal of the application for leave to defend the suit filed by the appellant/ defendant shows that appellant neither disclosed any plausible defence nor agitated triable issues, but only stereotype vague and routine objections have been taken. The availing of the loan facility against the undertaking/guarantee duly signed by him and his guarantors has not been denied. The record further reveals that the appellant neither took the plea of enclosure of forged and fictitious documents with the plaint in his petition nor this ground was urged before the learned trial court during arguments, therefore, this plea seems to be after thought and cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time at this belated stage. We do not find that any cogent and plausible or prima-facie defence was put forth which could warrant the leave to appeal and defend the suit. Perusal of the impugned judgment reflects that the learned trial court after fair and proper appraisal of the material on record has rightly rejected the application of the appellant for leave to appear and defend the suit. The relevant Para of the judgment is worth perusal, which is reproduced hereunder:- "The plaintiffs claim to the tune of total amount of Rs.134521/- as on 17.6.2013, is fully supported by the documentary evidence annexed with plaint of the suit. The defendants have not been able to rebut it through any cogent or prima facie evidence. No substantial question of law or facts has been raised in the application for leave to defend. Consequently, the application for grant of leave to defend the suit is rejected and a decree for the recovery of Rs.134521/- is passed in favour of the plaintiff Bank and against the defendants with cost of funds, as notified by the SBP from time to time, from 18.6.2013 till final realization of the entire outstanding amount, with costs of the suit. "
8. Adverting to the last contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the interest being repugnant to the injunctions of Islam, the Banking Court charge any interest and no decree can be granted against the same. No doubt interest is forbidden in Islam, however, the loan facility was extended to the appellant under a written agreement; therefore, he is bound to abide by its terms and conditions. In view of the above observations made hereinabove, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant needs no further consideration.
9. The appellant neither denied extension of loan facility to him, nor challenged the authenticity or validity of the documents appended with the plaint, is liable to pay back the loan. The record further reveals that the appellant failed to honour his commitment of repayment of loan, therefore, the suit was rightly decreed against him.
10. The upshot of above discussion is that the appeal has no force, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.