' RANA BHAGWAN DAS, J.---This appeal under section 21 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Credits, Finances and Advances) Act, 1997, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21-11-1998 decreeing the suit of the respondent bank in the sum of Rs,10,77,265.84 with mark- up at the latest bank rate from the date of suit till payment.
2. The appellant was granted finance facility to the extent of Rs,19,58,400 with mark-up at 12% per annum vide sanction advice dated 13-6-1990. It was subsequently enhanced on 11-7-1990 at the request of the appellant in the sum of Rs,22,03,200 on same terms and conditions vide sanction advice dated 11-7-1990. The finance was repayable in instalments on or before 31-12-1992 while the appellant made certain payments towards the finance liability for balance amount of Rs,1,265,000 he requested for renewal which was allowed for the period ending on 31-12-1996 against the security furnished earlier with the result that a sanction advice dated 11-11-1993 was issued to this effect. Again after making payment of certain instalments for adjustment towards the outstanding dues despite respondent bank's repeated letters of demand appellant failed to discharge his liability with the result that the respondent was obliged to file a suit for recovery of Rs,13,92,384.
3. The appellant though served with the summons of the suit on 17-4-1998 which was handed over to his brothers. Umerdraz Khan did not care to submit an application for leave to defend as required by section 10 of the Act, 1997. He moved belated application for condonation of delay on the ground that he had proceeded to a far-off place in N.-W.F.P. On 4-4-1998 in order to make arrangements for his sister marriage wherefrom he returned to Karachi on 7-5-1998. He urged that there were no means of communication to convey the information with regard to receipt of summons of the suit in the village where he was engaged in connection with the marriage arrangement. He submitted two tickets of Coach Services, but did not file any copy of his own Identity Card or Identity Card of his sister to show that he had really been away from Karachi to a place which is not connected by postal or telecommunication services. His prayer for leave to defend did not find favour with the Trial Court who dismissed the same. Consequently as there was no defence adduced on behalf of the appellant, the suit was decreed in the sum as aforesaid.
4. Section 21 of the Act, 1997 stipulates that the High Court shall at the stage of admitting an appeal or at any time thereafter, either suo motu or on the application of the decree-holder decide by means of a reasoned order whether the appeal is to be admitted in part or in whole depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant contended that in fact the appellant had never asked for renewal of the finance facility and that he had made payment more little over Rs,22, lacs whereas only a sum of Rs,584,392 was due and payable by him by way of mark-up. He has relied upon counterfoils of the cheques issued to the respondent bank towards the payment of finance facility in instalments.
6. While the respondent Bank does not dispute the payment of sum of about Rs,22 lacs by the appellant towards the finance facility, according to the bank statement a sum of Rs,13,923,84.45 was due and payable by the appellant including the mark-up as well as liquidated damages. In support the respondent has submitted certified true copy of the statement of account for the period ending 5th December, 1996, maintained in the ledgers of the bank, this certificate is presumed to be true, correct and conclusive in terms of section 4 of the Banker's Book Evidence Act, 1891 unless proved otherwise.
7. Adverting to the contention of the appellant that he did not ask for renewal of the facility the argument calls for appreciation of evidence which was not adduced before the Trial Court despite the due service of summons in the ordinary course as well as by publication in two newspapers published from Karachi as the appellant had given his residential address at Karachi, which is deemed to be valid and conclusive in terms of section 9(8) of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997.
8. Lastly learned counsel contended that by reason of his absence from Karachi to a. Far flung place in the North-West Frontier Province he was unable to raise his defence before the Trial Court except for two coach service tickets dated 4-4-1998, the appellant did not adduce any evidence to show that he was really stuck up at his home village till 7-5-1998 as contended on his behalf. In all fairness it was incumbent upon the appellant to submit National Identity Card of his own and his sister to reflect that the place pointed out by him was visited by him and such place was beyond the reach of his brother who had received the summons and was available at Karachi all along.
There is, thus, no merit in this contention as well.
9. Before parting with the judgment it may be observed that the learned Banking Court took care to ensure that the decree was passed for the amount due and payable by the appellant and not the amount claimed by the bank inasmu ch as only amount of agreed mark-up was awarded, whereas liquidated damages were disallowed.
10. For the aforesaid facts and reasons there is absolutely no merit in the appeal and there is. No ground for its admission for regular hearing. It is accordingly dismissed in limine alongwith the listed applications. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.