This is an appeal filed under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (the Ordinance) against judgment and decree dated 12.06.2012 passed by the Banking Court.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent bank filed a suit against the appellant seeking recovery of Rs.
1,414,595/- in terms of the prayer made in the plaint on account of a finance facility which was granted through sanction advice dated 30.12.2008. The appellant filed his application for leave to defend. The Banking Court after hearing the argument dismissed the said application and decreed the suit filed by the respondent bank.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the application for leave to defend ought to have been granted as precious rights of the appellant were involved. We have gone through the contents of the PLA filed by the appellant and find that it not only does not comply with the requirements of section 10 of the Ordinance but contains no meaningful ground challenging the liability set up in the plaint. Section 10 of the Ordinance by its terms imposes a mandatory requirement on the defendant to state all the particulars mentioned in its subsection (4) and to append all the necessary documents as mentioned in its subsection (5). A Failure to meet the requirements of section 10(4) and (5) of the Ordinance by a defendant results in dismissal of his PLA (see Appollo Textile Mills Limited v . Soneri Bank Limited 2012 CLD 337 ). It was held in the said judgment that: "A defending customer is thus obliged to put in a definite response to the banks accounting and has under sections 10(3) and (4) to compulsorily plead in answer in the leave petition his accounts as well as the facts and amounts disputed by him as repayable to the plaintif f." (emphasis supplied)
The PLA is not at all compliant of section 10(4) of the Ordinance and as such in terms of section 10(6) of the Ordinance is liable to be rejected. The consequence of such rejection of PLA is also spelt out in section 10(11) of the Ordinance, which clearly states that on such rejection the Banking Court shall forthwith pass judgment and decree in favour of the plaintif f. A similar consequence is also provided in sectio n 10(1) of the Ordinance which states that dismissal of the PLA means that all the allegations made in the plaint shall be deemed to be accepted and the banking court is obliged to pass a decree thereon. The claim of the respondent bank is backed up by a duly certified statement of account and other documents including demand promissory note' and mortgage documents whereas the appellant in his application for leave to defendant has only made bald allegations. The banking court, therefore, rightly passed the decree against the appellant.
4. In the circumstances, we do not feel that this is a fit case for interfering in the judgment and decree rendered by the Banking Court. This appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed .