AHM AD NADEEM ARSHAD, J. This Regular First Appeal has been directed against order dated 04.11.2019 passed by the learned Judge, Banking Court No. II, Multan whereby suit instituted by the appellant bank for recovery of Rs.2,24,171.98 against respondent No.1 was dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.
2. Despite prior intimation qua fixation of this appeal no one is present before the Court on behalf of respondent No. 1/Sajid Hussain Shah being represented through his legal heirs. Hence, they are proceeded against ex-parte.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Certified copy of statement of account (Annexure-B) appended with this appeal itself indicates that on 28th March, 2014 the principal amount which was credited as Rs.2,24,171.98 in the account of respondent No.1 was written-off by the appellant bank showing the remaining balance as zero.
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that after passing Resolution in the meeting of Board of Directors the above said suit was instituted. We have thrashed out the entire record but could not find a single document to prove the assertion of the appellant. Besides this, suit in question was instituted after a belated stage. In this regard section 8 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 is relevant. It is reproduced as under:- "8. Suit for recovery of written off finances etc. (1) Subject to subsection (2) and notwithstanding anything contained in the Limitation Act, 1908 (IX of 1908) or any other law, a financial institution may, within five years, file a suit for the recovery of any amount written off, released or adjusted under any agreement, contract or consent, including a compromise or withdrawal of any suit or legal proceedings or adjustment of a decree between a financial institution and a customer, if it has reasons to believe that the amount was written off, released or adjusted for political reasons or considerations other than bona fide business considerations.
(2) No suit under subsection (1) shall he filed unless its filing has been approved by the Board of Directors, in the case of a financial institution incorporated within Pakistan, or the Chief Executive (by whatever name called or designated) of the financial institution in Pakistan, in the case of a financial institution incorporated outside Pakistan."
From plain reading of above provisions of section 8 of the Ordinance ibid there left no doubt that the bank could institute the suit against respondent No.1 within the prescribed period of five years with only pre-condition of prior approval from the Board of Directors. Moreover, the documents appended with the plaint do not have copy of Resolution with regard to approval for instituting the suit as alleged by learned counsel for the appellant.
5. In the above perspective, order passed by learned Banking Court is not open to any debate for this Court in its appellate jurisdiction. Even otherwise order passed by learned Banking Court is based on sound reasoning which does not call for interference of this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. We do not find any merit in this Regular First Appeal, hence, the same is dism issed with no order as to costs.