1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs.99,681,856.91 with the following reliefs:---
(a) For judgment and decree in the sum of Rs.99,681,856/91 (Rupees Ninety Nine Million Six Hundred Eighty Six only) against the defendants jointly and severally with 19% interest with quarterly rests from the date of filing the suit till realization of decretal amount; "
(b) For a final decree for sale of following properties:-----
(i) Pledged Securities of DSC/KDC from Serial No.K-282823 to K-282872 totalling 50 count face value Rs.100,000 each total value being Rs.5,000,000 (Rupees five million only) date of issue 13-12- 1991;"
(c) For a final Mortgage Decree for sale of following. m16 properties:--
(i) All that piece and parcel of the un-surveyed land measuring an area of 40 acres or thereabout situated at Deh Gharo, unsurvey Tappo Charo, Taluka Mirpur Sakro (Police Station Gharo) District Thatta with all constructions, fixtures, fittings, plants, machineries, equipments, ,thereon and bounded as under:--- From North By:----Kandoria Wadi Dhori From South By:--------National Highway From East By:----Dandoria Dhori and Beyond that Anwar Textile Mills Ltd.
From West By:----Land of Mr. Ghulam Qadir
(b) List of Michinery:
(1) 32 Tuepe 600 High production Cards 40" width on wife Comlter with motors switches etc.
(2) 4 Saste Separator and Filte Boxes for use with magnavac Unit card Air System, including fans etc.
(3) 5 Hand Cleaning Hose Assembly Units.
(4) 8 Portable Brush assembly unit for flat and lubication card grading assessories.
(5) Essential Card Grinding 7 Mounting Equipment.
(6) 6 Type 740 MK II Globe High Speed Drawing Frames (first passage Corded) each 1 Head of 2 deliveries, 22" gauge, ends into 1 Table Types creel with motors switches etc.
(7) 6 Type 740 MK 11 clobe High Speed Drawing Frames (first Passage Corded) each I Head of 2 deliveries 22" guage 1 Table type creel with Motors and switches etc.
(8) 9 Type MS2 MK III Speed Fames of 104 spindles each 8 % guage (4 spindles in 17-3/4) 12" lift x 5- 3/4 dia full hobiins with section clearers and creel etc.
(9) 2 Air Compressor Units
(10) 56 Type 800 Super Spinner ring frames of 444 spindles each, 3% guage 2" dia 9" lift with PK 220 Arm Weighting, motor switches, etc.
(11) Parks-Cramer overhead travelling cleaner equipment to operate on 56 Ring Frames.
(12) 8 MD 3 Drg Ring Doubling Frames of 408 spindles each, 3" guage 9 lift and 2" dia multi-grove back slope rings, mottors, switches etc.
(13) 1 Type 740 Mark II Globe High Speed Drawing Frames (Pre-Comber) head of 2 deliveries with creel, etc."
(14) 1 Type 702 Lap Former to make laps 10 % wide creel for 20 etc.
(15) 96 Spum Metal Lap Bobbins covered with stockinette
(16) 4 Type 720 century Combers each 8 heads, creel for 10% wide laps twin Coilers for cans 42"
High x 20" dia indicators, motors, switches etc.
(17) 4 Hydraulic Tam Bundling presses including motors and switches.
(18) 1 Hynar 250 ton bailing press.
(19) Spares parts and accessories for complete plant.
And for the repayment of sale proceeds to the plaintiff towards the decretal amount;
(ii) All that piece and parcel of leasehold land with construction furniture and fixture, machinery and other fixed assets hereon bearing No.73-K, measuring 14 Marlas No.698 situated at Mouza Kabirwala, Tehsil Kabirwala, District Multan.
On the North by: On the South by: On the East by: On the West by: belonging to defendant No.9 And for the repayment of sale proceeds to the plaintiff towards the decretal amount; "
"(f) Any other better remedy under the circumstances of the case. "
2. After institution of the suit the defendants were issued process through registered A/D, bailiff and by notice, published in daily Dawn dated 24-8-1994. As per office record Mr. A.Rauf received the summons on behalf of defendants Nos. l, 2, 4 to 9, on 20-8-1994 for hearing on 19-9-1994. The notice for appearance of the defendants was also published in Daily Dawn, dated 24-8-1994. The prayer in the application is on behalf of the defendants whereas Vakalatnama of Mr. A.Rauf shows that it was filed for defendant No.5 only. No any power of attorney was filed on behalf of the other defendants.
3. In support of this application affidavit of Mr. Amanullah Shaikh son of Ataullah, the General Manager has been filed, which is dated 31 August, 1994. It is very strange to note that none of the defendants has taken trouble to file affidavit.
4. The ground urged in the application is that Mr.Hafiz Azmat, defendant No.2, was out of country in connection with his business.st
5. Power of Mr. Kamal Azfar for all the defendants is dated 7-3-1995, whereas additional affidavit of Hafiz Azmat Shaikh is dated 22-3-1995.
6. Mr. Kamal Azfar, learned counsel for defendants has contended; (i) that defendants Nos.2 to 8 are guarantors and are not to be penalised. He has referred para. 4 of the affidavit of Amanullah Shaikh, General Manger of defendant No. 1, which is reproduced as under and contended; (ii) that no amount is payable by the defendants or very little amount shall be outstanding:------ "4. From the statement of accounts, against the advances of the Bank the defendant No. l had paid the following amounts:---- 156000, 156000, 156000, 32000, 341377.60, 268135, 338600, 804700, 93400, 106009, 96000, 45000, 244500, 186500, 346300, 173500, 121200, 528000, 905200, 293000, 8200, 500000, 295000, 360000, 41400, 46500, 58000, 41600, 96100, 17500, 189000, 90662.67, 560000, 378700, 228361, 531441.68, 371000, 220100, 75325, 253265, 99097.51, 297233.32, 155474, 570000, 121000, 29500, 153000, 44000, 74500, 20000, 123000, 59500, 59500, 146000, 574700, 519000, 131129, 189500, 2145098.67, 950000, 138600, 7872, 171500, 131806, 91400, 39172, 386000, 164000, 181500, 136000, 217950, 171269.65, 37984, 4610.70, 282000, 153740, 144895, 37081, 148718, 74597, 75267, 1090267.26, 193129, 45914, 281797.60, 2126285.91, 1451749.30, 4216553.17, 2203068.82, 2264151.18,206040,2279185.95,213956,1899,2372096.46."
If the above amounts are added no amount payable, by defendant or very little amount shall be outstanding.
7. I would like to reproduce para.9 of the affidavit of Amanullah, which as under:--- "It is submitted that the above mortgages were obtained under coercion and duress and this honourable Court may enquire into and pass proper orders."
8. Mr. Kamal Azfar has referred paras. 11 and 12 of the additional affidavit of Muhammad Hafiz Shaikh, Chief Executive of defendant No.1, which are reproduced as under:--- "It is submitted that the Bank has admitted that sufficient security was kept by the defendants and the plaintiff has admitted that the loan was properly secured as the defendant had executed a promissory note for Rs.10,00,000 (para. 3 of plaints). The defendant has executed a letter of hypothecation in respect of stocks of and (para. 4 of the plaint) the defendant deposited title documents of immovable property No.F/254. Site and in Society Area (para. 6 and 7 of the plaint).
The value of the property has tremendously increased security is much more than required. "
"
12. It is submitted that the above mortgages were obtained under coercion and duress and this Honourable Court may enquire into and pass proper order. The defendant No. l is entitled to appear and defend the suit unconditionally."
9. Mr. Kamal Azfar has also referred to Annexure 'C' which is deed of collateral mortgage filed by the plaintiff in favour of the plaintiff. He has also referred to Annexure C-2, memorandum confirming deposit of title-deeds, D, D-1 to D-4, Certificate of Registration of mortgage in favour of the plaintiff, Annexure ' F' , promissory note, executed by defendant No.1 and signed by its Director, Annexures I to I-4, letters of guarantee and signed by the guarantor in favour of the plaintiff. Annexure K, letter of pledge and Annexure M, promissory note.
10. Mr. Kamal Azfar has also contended that paragraph 11 of the additional affidavit of Muhammad Hafiz Shaikh, has gone unrebutted.
11. On the date of hearing Mr. Kazi Khalid A.I has filed counter-affidavit of Saleem Sadique son of Muhammad Sadique, attorney of the plaintiff-bank. The relevant paragraphs of the same are reproduced as under:--- "2. That I have gone through the contents of application under Order 37, Rule 3 read with section 151, C.P.C. C.M.A.3862/94 and its supporting affidavit. I have also gone through the contents of additional affidavit dated March, 1995 in support of the same application.
"3. That I have legally been advised, which advice I verily believe to be true that the application for leave to defend is misconceived and not maintainable on various counts, viz:---
(a) the application on the basis of original supporting affidavit sworn by the General Manager, Mr. Amanullah Shaikh is incompetent as he is not an authroized person in absence of any lawful authority under the law;
(b) the Board resolution that was annexed alongwith the additional affidavit filed after the passage/lapse of several months is factually belated and afterthought;
(c) the stand taken by the defendant Taxtile Mills vide paras. 4 to 7 is whimsical and as such carries no sanctity which is vehemently denied;
(d) the allegations-intr6duced vide para.8 are, against facts on record;
(e) in reply to paras.9 and 10 it is submitted that against the decision of Federal Shariat Court, appeals have been filed by Federation of Pakistan and other Agencies and thereby Constitutional stay is in operation.
4. That rest of the paras. Are not admitted, they are denied vehemently as the defendant Textile Mills have attempted to introduce a new case/plea and Defence belatedly."
5. That we once again reiterate what have been verified on oath by way of the plaint and other affidavits and state that we have a genuine claim against the defendant who is liable to pay the suit amount: That no ground has been made out by the defendant for leave to defend. "
12. Mr. Kamal Azfar has referred the following case-law:---
(i) (1988 MLD 2853 Lahore) case of Rashid Ahmed v. National Bank of Pakistan and others:------ "The learned trial Court vide order dated 20-1-1982, permitted them to contest the suit on the condition that they should deposit the entire amount in the Court by 25-2-1985. The appellant and his partners challenged the said order through Writ Petition No.3095 of 1982, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 15-4-1984. The appellant and his partners then filed I.C.A. No.97 of 1984, against the said judgment dated 15-4-1984. During the pendency of the Intra-Court Appeal the learned counsel for the appellant and his partners stated that negotiations for compromise were going on but he was not aware of the result as the appellant had not informed him. The appeal was disposed of with the observation that if the compromise had not come into being the learned counsel for the appellant may apply for revival of the appeal. This order was made on 8-7- 1984. However, vide order dated 19-7-1984, the learned Presiding Officer of the Special Court (Banking), camp at Multan decreed the suit of respondent No.1 with costs and interest. The present First Appeal has been filed to challenge the said decree dated 19-7-1984. It has been prayed in this appeal that not only the decree dated 19-7-1984 may be set aside, but also the order dated 20-1- 1982 by which the appellant and his partners were allowed permission to contest the suit on the condition that they should deposit the entire amount may also be set aside and the permission to contest the suit may be allowed without any condition. They also prayed that in case it was so required by law the said Intra-Court Appeal may be revived. We have perused the record and have heard the arguments."
13. The learned D.B. After discussion the facts and the case-law has held as under: "As already mentioned above, it is an admitted fact that the house in dispute has been mortgaged in favour of respondent No. 1 as security for the debt involved in the present suit and appeal.
Therefore, there is no necessity of imposing any condition for allowing permission to the appellant and his partners for contesting the suit. "
14. This authority of the learned D.B. So far as the facts and circumstances of this case are concerned, is not applicable. Because in the reported case the security by way of pledging of the rice, paddy and broken rice was not available at the time of hearing of the appeal.
(ii) (PLD 1978 Karachi 263) case of Habib Bank Ltd., Karachi v. Ghazanfarullh Khan and another: "I may also refer to another unreported decision of my brother Fakhruddin, J. In Suit No.400/76 (Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Mst. Khatija Bai and another). In this suit which was filed under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. Against defendant No.1 on the basis of the promissory note and against defendant No.2 on the basis of the guarantee executed by him, both the defendants jointly filed an application under Order XXXVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. For leave to defend which was granted on the condition that they would furnish security for the amount claimed in that suit. On review application being filed by defendant No.2 on the ground that he was not a signatory to the promissory note the suit was not maintainable under summary chapter against him, his lordship took the view that so far as defendant No. 2 was concerned summons could not have been issued to him under Order XXXVII and ordered that fresh summons in the ordinary course be issued to him: Thus, it is clear that in one and the same suit claim against one defendant on the basis of the guarantee was allowed to proceed and, therefore, the maintainability of the suit was not considered to have been affected. There might have been some serious objection as to the maintainability of the suit if more than one decrees could not have been passed in the same suit.
But under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code more than one decree can be passed in a suit against one defendant or several defendants during the proceedings and at the conclusion of the proceedings. Even, otherwise, a Court is entitled to proceed on the principle that every procedure which furthers the administration of justice is permissible even though there is no express provision permitting the same. "
The contention of Mr. Kamal Azfar, that the defendants are guarantors and are not signatories to Promissory Note, as such the suit is not maintainable under the summary chapter against them, is not borne out from the record. The defendants are directors of Messrs Azmat Textile Mills Ltd. And have executed necessary documents in favour of the plaintiff and have, prima facie, borrowed the amount from the plaintiff. Borrowers as well as the guarantors both are one and the same personality. Therefore, the guarantors are also liable like that of a borrower.
(iii) (1992 SCMR 718 case of Messrs National Security Insurance Company Ltd. And others v. Messrs Hoechst Pakistan Ltd. And others: The Honourable Supreme Court after hearing the parties has held as under:--- "We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the supplier, the agents and the guarantor and have perused the record. It cannot be denied that the guarantor neither issued nor executed any negotiable instrument in favour of the supplier, as to warrant summary proceedings being initiated against it. Guarantees and indemnity bonds are not negotiable instruments.
Summary suits under Order XXXVIIof the Code are only instituted upon bills of exchange, hundies or promissory notes. Since the guarantor had executed guarantee bonds, the summary procedure provided under Order XXXVII of the C.P.C. Was not applicable to it. This position is also admitted by the learned counsel for the supplier. A similar question came up before the Karachi High Court in Habib Bank Ltd. v. Ghazanfarullah Khan PLD 1978 Karachi. 263. In that case, on a summary suit by the Bank against the principal debtor and the guarantor on a loan issued on the security of a promissory note executed by the principal debtor, supported by a guarantee furnished by the guarantor, in which both the principal debtor and the guarantor had applied for leave to defend, leave to the principal debtor was refused and the suit decreed against him, whereas unconditional leave was granted to the guarantor and the suit was allowed to proceed against it as an ordinary suit. On an objection being raised by the guarantor in the High Court as to whether the suit was maintainable or not, it was held that, in the absence of any prejudice, the suit against it did not suffer from such an infirmity as to disentitle the Bank from enforcing its legitimate claim against the guarantor. In that case the learned Judge took support from an unreported decision in Suit No.400 of 1976 in re: Muslim Commercial Bank Limited v. Mst. Khatija Bai and another, wherein the said suit one defendant was allowed to be proceeded under the summary procedure and the guarantor under the ordinary procedure and the maintainability of the suit was not treated as being effected in any material manner. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the order of the learned Single Judge granted leave to the guarantor to appear and to defend the suit under Order XXXVII, Rule 3 of the C.P.C. Subject to the deposit of the amount claimed, cannot be sustained and must be set aside. The guarantor is entitled to defend the suit unconditionally on the basis of the ordinary procedure applicable to the trial of normal suits as is provided by the Code. "
The Honourable Supreme Court has allowed Civil Appeals No.277 of 1991 on the ground that the guarantor neither issued nor executed any negotiable instrument in favour of the supplier, as to warrant summary proceedings being initiated against it. Whereas in this case the defendants have signed negotiable instruments in favour of the plaintiff as a borrower and guarantor. I would like to reproduce relevant portion of the order of the Honourable Supreme Court as under:--- "Civil Appeal No.278 of 1990 filed by Thal Cotton Industries Limited and another, appellants, is dismissed and the appellants shall appear and defend the suit, subject to their depositing the suit amount within the time and subject to the condition as stated in the impugned judgment, which suit shall proceed against them as a summary suit under the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure."
This authority of the Honourable Supreme Court is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
(iv) (1991 SCMR 33) case of Baghpatee Pvt. Ltd. And others v. Messrs Pak-Libya Holding Company Pvt. Ltd. And others:--- "We would convert the above petition into an appeal and would dispose of the same by ordering that the learned Single Judge acting as a Special Court, after determining the approximate value of the mortgaged property and after hearing the parties, would give adjustment of the value so determined against the security amount fixed for petitioner No. 1. With the above modification, the impugned order is maintained. "
This authority of the Honourable Supreme Court is not applicable to the case of the defendants because prayer in the application is not that they are prepared to furnish security amount to be fixed by the Court after determining the value of the mortgaged property.
15. Mr. Kazi Khalid A.I, learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended (i) that at the time of the filing of this application no any affidavit of the defendants was filed but on the contrary affidavit of one Amanullah Shaikh was filed, who is purported to be General Manager of defendant No. l; (ii) that neither any proof of their being out of country has been filed nor any affidavit in this respect has been filed in the Court; (iii) that all the other defendants have not filed any affidavit; (iv) that defendants Nos.2 to 8 are not being representated; (v) that the amount credited by the defendants is adjusted by the plaintiff towards their loan; (vi) that an amount of Rs.99,681,856.91 is due against the defendants jointly and severally with 19% interest with quarterly rest from the date of the filing of the suit till realization of the decretal amount; (vii) that Annexure ' N' is the document executed by the defendant admitting correctness of the account and acknowledging existing liability in the sum of Rs.94,459,046.93 and (viii) that Amanullah who has sworn the affidavit, is neither Director nor borrower and as such his affidavit is not to be considered.
16 Mr. Kazi Khalid A.I has referred the following authority:--
(i) (1993 SCMR 931) case of National Bank of Pakistan and another v. Emirates Bank International Ltd., Karachi:--- "Limitation Act (IX of 1908) of 1908, Arts. 159 and 181---Application for leave to defend the suit--- Article 159, Limitation Act, 1908 having direct nexus with the provisions of OXXXVII, C.P.C. And both provisions being interdependent and interconnected have to be applied in the trial of suits under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979. "
17. I would like to refer (i) 1986 MLD 1965 case of United Bank Ltd. v. Fairfax Textile Ltd.:--- "(a) Ss.6 and 7--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, Rr. 2 and 3--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5--Suit for recovery of loans--Delay in filing application for leave to defend suit--Condonation of--Failure of defendant to affirm in his affidavit all averments made in application for condonation of delay under S.5 of Limitation Act (IX of 1908) in clear and in-equivocal terms, held, would disentitle defendant to condonation of unexplained delay m filing application for leave to appear and defend suit occurring after defendant's knowledge of recovery suit filed against him.
(b) Ss.6 and 7--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, Rr. 2 and 3--Service of summons through publication--Validity of--In recovery suit under O.XXXVII, Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), if summon published in newspapers had described claim in suit and was in prescribed form requiring defendant to seek leave to appear and defend suit within 10 days of publication of summons--Consequences of failure to do so being also mentioned, in such publication, particularly in a suit under Ordinance XIX of 1979, held, would be deemed to be proper and valid service on defendant--Publication of entire plaint in newspaper or annexing copy thereof being not practicable, defendant, could not be allowed to agitate that service of summons through publication in newspapers was not valid service as he had not been supplied copy of plaint.
(c) Ss.6 and 7--Civil Procedure Code V of 1908, O.XXXVII, Rr.2 and 3--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5- -Application for leave to appear and defend suit--Filing of--Limitation for--Starting point-- Limitation period of ten days for filing application for leave to appear and defend suit by defendant, held, would be computed from date of publication of summons in newspaper and not from date of knowledge of such publication--Defendant is required to explain delay of each and every day in accordance with law."
This authority of this Court is very much applicable in this case because after service the defendants have chosen themselves not to file affidavit in rebuttal of the plaintiff's case. But affidavit of Amanullah has been filed who is neither Director nor a borrower and is purported to be General Manager and employee of the defendant No. 1.
18. I would also like to refer Order 37, Rule 3, which is as under:--- "Defendant showing defence on merits to have leave to appear.--(1) The Court shall, upon application by the defendant, give leave to appear and to defend the suit, upon affidavits which disclose such facts as would make it incumbent on the holder to prove consideration, or such other facts as at the Court may deem sufficient to support the application.
(2) Leave to defend may be given unconditionally or subject to such terms as to payment into Court, giving security, framing and recording issues or otherwise as the Court thinks fit.
(3) The provision of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (IX of 1908), shall apply to application under sub-rule (1)."
According to the provisions of Order 37, Rule 3, C.P.C. The defendant has to submit affidavit which disclose such facts as would make it incumbent on the holder to prove consideration, or such other facts as the Court may deem sufficient to support the application.
19. The application filed by the defendants dated 31-8-1994 is not supported by any affidavit but on the contrary affidavit of an employee of the defendant has been filed who is neither borrower nor guarantor. After a lapse of about five months an additional affidavit of Muhammad Hafiz Shaikh has been a filed.
20. In the absence of affidavit, as provided under Order 37, Rule 3, C.P.C., the defendants have not been able to, prima facie, make out a case for I grant of leave to appear and defend the suit unconditionally.
21. I would like to refer (2) (1986 MLD 473) case of Allied Bank of Pakistan v. United Builders and others:--- "Ss.5 and 6--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, Rr.2 and 3--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5-- Application for leave to appeal Delay--Condonation--For seeking condonation of delay in making application within prescribed period of limitation default of each day had to be succinctly explained by applicant so as to furnish sufficient cause for seeking same--Where application was made beyond period of limitation of plea of belated knowledge, limitation would not be computed afresh from date of such knowledge--Applicant in such circumstances, held, was under obligation to explain each day's delay occurred since expiry of prescribed period of limitation.
(b) Arts. 5 and 64-A--Banking Companies Recovery of Loans Ordinance (XIX of 1979), Ss. 5 and 6-- Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, Rr. 2 and 3--Institution of summary suits- Limitation-- When special Article of Schedule of Limitation Act, 1908 was available for particular type of suits, then general Article of such Schedule for suits of that nature would give way to special Article--- Article 5 of Schedule which prescribed period of limitation as one year, could no longer be made applicable to suits under OXXXVII of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in view of addition of Art. 64-A of said Schedule, which Article specifically provided period of limitation for suits provided for by O.XXXVII of Civil Procedure Code."
22. This C.M.A. Was filed on 31-8-1994 supported by the affidavit of Amanullah Shaikh as already pointed out is neither borrower nor. Director of the defendant. The additional affidavit of Muhammad Hafiz Shaikh son of Azmatullah Shaikh is very delayed, belated and has been filed without any proper or plausible explanation whatsoever.
23. I would like to refer relevant portion of judgment of my Lord Ajmal Mian, J, which is reported in PLD 1990 SC 497, case of Messrs Ahmed Autos v. Allied Bank of Pakistan as under:--- "It is a matter of common knowledge that defaulter borrowers in suits brought against them particularly by the financial institution onused to delay the disposal of the suits by avoiding the service of the summons. In order to expedite the disposal of the suits to be brought by the Banking Companies the Ordinance was promulgated, which contains the specialprovisions and which inter alia provide that a suit brought by a Banking Company for the recovery of loan is to be tried in summary manner under Order XXXVIL Section 15 of the Ordinance empowers the Federal Government by a notification in the official Gazette to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Ordinance "
24. I have gone through the material placed on record and the authorities referred to above. This C.M.A. Is not supported by any affidavit sworn by any of the defendants, borrowers/guarantors. The affidavit sworn by Amanullah son of Attaullah who is an employee of the defendant is of no concern at all. The contention that Muhammad Hafiz Azmat was in Bangladesh in connection of their business, is not supported by any affidavit or legal proof. Power of Mr. Kamal Azfar was filed on 7-3-1995 whereas affidavit of Hafiz Azmat was filed on 22-3-1995 without any proper or plausible explanation. Prima facie it can be presumed as an afterthought so as to defeat the suit of the plaintiff. That copy of the resolution which has been filed authorising Amanullah, General Manager of the Company, empowering him to defend the suit does not bear any date. The of Mr. Kamal Azfar that the guarantors are not to be penalised and they may be permitted unconditional leave to defend the suit, is also not borne out from the record. The mere denial by the defendants that the mortgages were obtained under coercion and duress, is not appealing to common sense.
Usually, as has rightly been pointed by Ajmal Mian, J. The borrowers after taking loan from the financial institutions, use tactic to delay the disposal of the suit.
25. For the foregoing reasons I dismiss this application, as no case for grant of unconditional leave to appear and defend the suit, is made out by the defendants.