ABID HUSSAIN CHATTHA, J. This Regular First Appeal is preferred by the. Appellants against Respondent No. 1 (the "Respondent") under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (the "Ordinance") against the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 23.06.2017 passed by Judge Banking Court-111, Multan (the "Banking Court"), whereby, the suit for recovery instituted by the Respondent Bank was decreed in the sum of Rs. 10,445,144.31/- against the Appellants, jointly and severally with cost of suit and cost of funds as contemplated by section 3 of the Ordinance.
2. Brief facts leading to this Appeal are that the Respondent Bank instituted a suit averring therein that Appellant No. 1 as Private Limited Company incorporated under the laws of Pakistan applied and availed various Facilities extended by the Respondent Bank which were renewed from time to time. The business relationship of Appellant No. 1 with the Respondent Bank commenced in the year 2007-2008 and the details of the Facilities sanctioned and availed by Appellant No. 1 were listed in paragraphs Nos. 6 and 7 of the plaint. The suit was filed with reference to Letter of Credit Facility (the "LC Facility"). Lastly, the LC Facility along with other Facilities were renewed on 02.04.2013. The finance and security documents were duly executed by the Appellants which were appended with the plaint. Appellants Nos. 2 to 4 are the Directors of Appellant No. 1 who executed their personal guarantees, whereas, Appellant No. 1 also mortgaged its in property through its authorized Director in favour of the Respondent Bank as security for repayments of the outstanding dues under the Facilities including the LC Facility. It was disclosed that two 'Letters of Credits on usance basis (90 days from, BL date) were opened by the Respondent Bank upon the request of Appellant No. 1 from LC (Usance) Foreign Limit during the year 2012 with date of expiry as 30.09.2012 and 21.10.2012. On receipt of shipping documents of each LC from time to time by 'the Respondent Bank, the latter delivered the said documents to Appellant No. 1 for acceptance which were duly accepted by Appellant No,
1. The said LC's were to be adjusted by Appellant No. 1 upon maturity i.e. 90 days from the BL date but Appellant No. 1 failed to 4o so. As such, the default was triggered and in consequence thereof, the Respondent Bank paid the requisite amount of each LC to its beneficiary through FADB after. dishonor thereof. The details of default regarding the two LC's bearing loan transaction Nos. LD1232000094 and LD1300200004, respectively were duly listed in detail in paragraph No. 13 of the plaint. It was claimed that the Appellants are liable to pay and the Respondent Bank is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 12,680,144.68/- on account of the alleged default of Appellant No. 1. Hence the suit to recover the said amount was instituted in the Banking Court.
3. The Appellants filed joint application for leave to defend the suit (the "PLA") raising a number of legal and factual questions. The Respondent filed Replication thereto. The questions raised in the PLA were dealt with by the Banking Court and in consequence thereof, the PLA was dismissed and the suit was decreed.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellants, inter alia, contended that the impugned Judgment and Decree is illegal, unlawful and contrary to the facts and record of the case; the Banking Court did not pass a speaking Order and the questions raised in the PLA were not properly addressed by the Banking Court; the suit was not competently filed; the relevant debit and credit entries as reflected in the statement of 'accounts were not dilly accounted for while determining the amount due; the suit was filed under Section 9 of the Ordinance read with Orders XXXIV and XXXVII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the "C.P.C.") which was an irregularity overlooked by the Banking Court; the blank documents were obtained by the Respondent Bank but the point raised was not given due attention by the Banking Court; Appellant No. 1 had availed more than one Facility regarding which separate suits were filed which was not permissible in terms of Order II, Rule 2 of the C.P.C.; and the questions of law and facts raised in the PLA were substantial in nature requiring grant of the PLA and recording of evidence but the Banking Court erred to summarily dismiss the PLA of the Appellants.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the Respondent Bank vehemently defended the impugned Judgment and Decree and submitted that the same has been passed in accordance with the requirements of law stipulated in the Ordinance. The Respondent had brought an open and shut case. The sanctioning and availing of the LC Facility was established through the execution of finance and security documents. The fact of default was apparent and manifest from the statement of accounts appended with the plaint. The markup levied' by the Respondent Bank was excluded by the Banking Court and only the principal amount was allowed after adjustment of all payments made by the Appellants. As such, there is no issue liable to be adjudicated or resolved in the instant Appeal which is liable to be dismissed.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Perusal of the record shows that sanctioning and availing of the LC Facility is not denied in the PLA. Mere bald and general assertion that blank documents were executed by the Appellants cannot be accepted against the executed finance and security documents appended with the plaint. The partial payments made regarding the LC's in question by Appellant No. 1 were admitted.
The suit was competently filed through the attorneys of the Respondent Bank which were appended with the plaint. All the relevant finance and security documents were also annexed with the plaint which could not be specifically denied or rebutted through any contradictory documents brought on record with the PLA.
8. The objection that suit was not competent since it was filed under Section 9 of the Ordinance read with Orders XXXIV and XXXVII of the C.P.C. is without force as mere mentioning of provisions of law in the title, of the suit is immaterial. Even otherwise, provisions of the C.P.C. are applicable as far as the same are not expressly excluded by the provisions of the Ordinance and mentioning of related Orders of the C.P.C. does not amount to any illegality.
9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the Appellants also contended that the Respondent Bank has filed separate suits regarding various Facilities which act is hit by the provisions of Order II, Rule 2 of the C.P.C. In this behalf, it is observed that each Finance Facility may give rise to an independent cause of action, therefore, the contention that separate suits cannot be filed under section 9 of the Ordinance which is a special law, is misconceived. This is primarily for the reason that default with reference to a particular Facility can take place on different dates giving rise to an independent cause of action. Moreover, each Facility may be backed by some common and different banking documents and even statement of accounts with respect to each Facility is maintained separately.
10. The Banking Court also rightly found that the Appellants in their PLA did not fulfill the requirement of section 10(4), (5) and (6) of the Ordinance in their PLA with respect to the amount of finance availed, paid, disputed and payable, thereby, entailing penal consequences by way of rejection of the PLA as stipulated in section 10(7) of the Ordinance. The requirements of section 9(3) of the Ordinance were duly and sufficiently met in the plaint. The necessary finance and security documents were in line with the claim of the Respondent Bank put forward in the plaint. The statement of accounts was duly verified in accordance with law. The presumption of truth is attached to the statement of accounts which could not be rebutted in the instant case.
11. It is importantly noted that main emphasis in the PLA was regarding the levy of markup beyond the date of expiry. In this behalf, the Banking Court granted relief to the Appellants in accordance with law and excluded the entire amount of markup while determining the amount due as clearly depicted from paragraph No 9. of the impugned Judgment. The repayments made against the defaulted LC's, was adjusted from the principal amount and the Banking Court arrived at a sum of Rs. 10,445,144.31/- as on 02.01.2013 being legitimate and lawful amount due against the Appellants, jointly and severally and payable to the Respondent Bank. It is, therefore, clear that no substantial question of law and fact was raised in the PLA which necessitated the grant of the PLA and recording of evidence. Hence, the Banking Court lawfully and rightly passed the decree in favour of the Respondent Bank.
12. In view of the above discussion, this Appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed, with costs.