' We intend to decide the following appeals by one consolidated order having similar facts and law:
1. R.F.A. No,5 of 1996.
2. R.F.A. No,6 of 1996.
3. R.F.A. No,7 of 1996.
2. Brief facts, out of which present appeals arise, are that the respondents secured a loan from the appellant. Agreements were executed between the appellant and the respondents. According to the terms and conditions of the agreements, the respondents had to repay the loan to the appellant in easy instalments. The respondents failed to discharge their liabilities in terms of the agreements executed between the parties. The appellant being aggrieved filed suits for recovery against the respondents amounting to Rs.2,49,577, Rs.2,61,443 and Rs.5,69,296 respectively, before the Banking Tribunal, Faisalabad. The learned Banking Tribunal issued notices to the respondents.
The respondents filed replies to the notices. The learned Banking Tribunal decreed the suits vide impugned judgments and decrees dated 11-4-1995, 23-4-1995 and 23-10-1995 respectively. The learned Banking Tribunal did not award liquidated damages to the appellant. The appellant being aggrieved filed the aforesaid appeals.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Banking Tribunal erred in law not to grant the liquidated damages to the appellant and, therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Banking Tribunal are the result of misreading and non-reading of the material placed before the learned Banking Tribunal by the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appellant did not issue any notice to the respondents in terms of law and the agreements executed between the parties and, therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees are based on well-reasoning and learned counsel for the appellant failed to establish any illegality or infirmity committed by the learned Banking Tribunal.
5. We have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record ourselves.
6. It is admitted fact that the appellant failed to establish that the appellant had sent notices to the respondents in terms of the agreements executed between the parties and under the provisions of law as the appellant failed to bring on record any material to show that the notices sent by the appellant were received by the respondents. The learned Banking Tribunal passed the impugned judgments and decrees in accordance with the material on record. We do not find any illegality or infirmity committed by the learned Banking Tribunal. Therefore, the appeals having no merits, are dismissed.