' The point on which this appeal was admitted to regular hearing has been noted in admission order. Dated 20-12-2001. This order is in continuation of the previous order. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank at the outset has referred to subsections (1) and (2) of section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance. 2001 to support the impugned order rejecting the plaint filed by the appellant. For facility of reference the aforesaid statutory provisions are reproduced as under: "(1) Where a customer or a financial institution commits a default in fulfillment of any obligation with regard to any finance, the financial institution or, as the case may be, the customer, may institute a suit in the Banking Court by presenting a plaint which shall be verified on oath, in the case of a financial institution by the Branch Manager or such other officer of the financial institution as may be duly authorized in this behalf by power of attorney or otherwise.
(2) The plaint shall be supported by a statement of account which in the case of a financial institution shall be duly certified under the Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891 (XVIII of 1891), and all other relevant documents relating to the grant of finance. Copies of the plaint, statement of account and other relevant documents shall be filed with the Banking Court in sufficient numbers so that there is one set of copies for each defendant and one extra copy."
2. It does appear from the aforesaid statutory provisions that even where a borrower files a suit he is required to append with the plaint a statement of account. The said statement, however, need not be certified in the manner prescribed under the Bankers Books Evidence, 1891. This is the only concession available to the borrower.
3. In the present case, admittedly no statement of account was filed by the appellant-plaintiff. In the circumstances, the learned Banking Court was justified in rejecting the plaint.
4. For the foregoing reason this appeal is dismissed.