' RAJA MUHAMMAD SABIR, J.---This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5-8- 1998 passed by the learned Judge Banking Court-II, Lahore whereby suit of respondent-Bank for a sum of Rs,33,02,157 was decreed against appellants.
2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants executed agreement, based on mark-up system and availed financial facilities from the respondent-Bank in accordance to its terms and conditions.
Appellants failed to discharge their liability in spite of repeated notices, therefore, the Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs,39,92,558. Appellants filed petition for leave to appear and defend the suit but the same was declined through impugned judgment and consequently it was decreed for a sum of Rs,33,02,157 by refusing liquidated damages.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the suit filed by the Bank through Amir Nawab was incompetent. He was neither a manager nor authorized by the Board of Directors of the respondent-Bank to file the suit. According to him it was violative of section 9(1) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act XV of 1997 which provides that the plaint shall be verified on oath in the case of Banking Company by the Branch Manager or such other officer as the Board of Directors of Bank may authorize in this behalf. Further argued that authority of aforesaid Amir Nawab to institute the suit was specifically challenged in petition for leave to appear and defend but the learned lower Court has not adverted to it while rejecting their application. The plaint having not been instituted by a competent officer the suit of the respondent could not be decreed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned decree and produced before us the power of attorney whereby the officer was specifically authorized by the Board of Directors to institute the suit.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the relevant record.
The contention of the appellants that Amir Nawab was not competent to institute the suit against the appellants has no merit. The power of attorney has been produced by the respondent showing that he was authorized to institute the suit. The suit was properly instituted in accordance to the power of attorney executed in his favour. We have perused the power of attorney produced before us authorizing Amir Nawab to institute the suit on behalf of the Bank. The contention of appellants is, therefore, misconceived and meritless. Appellants have not argued any other point in support of appeal. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.