1. ' The plaintiff has filed this suit claiming decree in the sum of Rs,1,12,984.58 with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization of the decretal amount and costs.
2. The facts of the case as disclosed in the plaint briefly stated are that M/s Eastern Mercantile Bank Limited, which on nanalization of the banks stood merged in the National Bank of Pakistan, on the application of the defendant granted over-draft facility against pledge of goods/stocks initially in the sum of Rs,100,000 with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. According to the plaintiff the value of stock pledged as disclosed, was highly inflated, that the defendant also failed to insure the stock pledged with the result that the plaintiff bank got the said goods insured and paid the premiums which were debited to the defendant's account.
2. ' The defendant subsequently applied for enhancement of the cash, credit facility which was granted against securities pledged with the plaintiff.
3. ' It is the case of the plaintiffs that in spite of repeated requests of the plaintiffs and promises made by the defendant to clear the liabilities, the defendant failed to clear the dues. He however on 20th May, 1970 executed promissory note for a sum of Rs,1,50,000 payable on demand to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. The pro-note was delivered alongwith letter of continuity in addition to agreement of pledge of security duly executed by the defendant to the plaintiff.
4. Copies of the promissory note, letter of continuity and the agreement of pledge of security have been produced alongwith the plaint as Annexure A, B and C respectively. The promissory note however, the learned counsel concedes, is insufficiently stamped.
5. ' The defendant, according to the plaintiff, made payment of a total sum of Rs,60,000 on different dates against his total liability which as per accounts kept by the bank in normal course of business amounts, to Rs,1,12,984.85. Duly certified statement of account (Annexure D) has been produced.
6. ' The plaintiff has expressly pleaded in the plaint that on various dates mentioned therein, the defendant admitted his liability and made promises in writing but did not honour the same.
7. ' The plaint has been duly verified on oath by Mr.Muhammad Ali, Principal officer and Attorney of the plaintiff bank. The defendant and his advocate called absent. I have accordingly decided to proceed ex parte and allowed the plaintiff to file affidavit in ex parte proof in support of their case.
8. ' Mr.Farhat Hussain, an officer of the plaintiff bank in its Cambel Street Branch, Karachi, has filed affidavit which fully corroborates the facts stated in the plaint. He has also produced original letters dated 18th June, 1979, 8th July, 1980, 4th May 1972, 30th August, 1972 and 26-2-1973 written by the defendant which show that the defendant on each occasion when he wrote to the plaintiff, admitted his liability promised to clear the dues which were outstanding and requested for extension of time to enable him to make payment and adjust the account.
9. In view of the facts stated in the plaint supported by the affidavit filed in ex parte proof, I am satisfied that the claim of the plaintiff stands fully proved. Accordingly the suit is decreed for A Rs,1,12,984.85..The defendant shall also pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till realization of the decretal amount besides costs of the suit.
10. Before concluding it may be mentioned here that with the permission of the Court on 28th September, 1982 the plaintiff was allowed to sell the goods and stock pledged with the plaintiff bank through public auction. The pledged goods and stock of the defendant were accordingly disposed of and a sum of Rs,23,000 realized by the plaintiff was deposited with the Nazir of this Court on 28th February, 1983. The plaintiff would be entitled to make appropriate application for withdrawal of the said amount.