' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---Respondent's suit for recovery to the tune of Rs.13,26,822 against the appellants was allowed by the learned Banking Court, by disallowing the leave to defend application of the appellants, vide judgment and decree dated 14-4-2003.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, that the respondent-Bank brought a suit for the recovery of an amount of Rs.15,74,618.69, claiming in the suit that the appellant No,1 requested for the over theft finance facility, which was allowed to the amount of Rs.4,00,000; however, later the limit was enhanced from 0.400 million to 0.500 million. This limit was renewed from time to time and the same was lastly renewed vide sanction advice dated 5-4-2000, when the limit was reduced from 0.5 million to 0.25 million. In this behalf, finance agreement was duly executed between the parties, in order to secure the facility, the appellant No,2 created a legal and equitable mortgage over his property, whereas the other appellants also stood as guarantors, certain amounts were paid in discharge of the liability. However, the amount of Rs.309,205.69 is outstanding towards the appellant No,1, which the appellants are jointly and severally liable to pay. Besides, it is further claimed in the suit, that the appellant No,1 requested for the establishment of letter of credit (L/C), for the import of goods in favour of Messrs Toka Exports and Trading, Singapore, and submitted the required application, an irrevocable letter of credit was duly provided on 30-12-2000; the consignment accomplished and the respondent-Bank negotiated the L/ C and paid off the amount according to the terms of the L/C. But the appellant No,1 failed 'to discharge its liability in this behalf. The other appellants were the guarantors for the payment of the L/C amount. On this account, an amount of Rs.10,96,902 was claimed. The appellants filed their leave to appear and defend application, which has been rejected by the learned Banking Court, and through the judgment and decree dated 14-4-2003, has allowed the suit to the extent of Rs.12,26,822.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the impugned judgment and decree for the amount of overdraft finance facility. But has taken serious exception to the L/C amount awarded. He argued, that in paragraph 11 of the plaint, it is mentioned that the letter of credit is dated 30-12-2000, whereas from the documents filed along with the PLA the date is 31-12-2000, and in reply to the PLA the letter of credit submitted by the respondent-Bank, the date has been interpolated to 31-12-2000. It is also submitted, that according to the letter of credit, the foreign exporter had to supply 248 computers to the appellants, but it was learnt by the appellants that the supply was not being made according to the goods mentioned in the invoice and the L/C, resultantly, the appellants requested the Bank not to negotiate the L/C, but the respondent-Bank despite the above negotiated the L/C, which has resulted into loss to the appellants, therefore, the respondent is not entitled to recover that amount. It is also submitted, that the L/C had been negotiated in absence of the necessary documents, particularly the insurance policy, which was essential as that would have entitled the appellant to claim the amount of the short supply or inferior quality from the insurance company. These aspects of the matter have not been taken into account by the learned Court while refusing to grant the leave and allowing the suit of the respondent-Bank.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Though, there seems to be some discrepancy in the date of the opening of L/C, but one thing is clear that number of the L/C is the same . It is not even the case of the appellants, that on the basis of the same L/C the goods have not been imported; moreover, the L/C is irrevocable at sight, therefore, irrespective the error in the date, the moment it was required to be negotiated, the Bank was under the obligation to pay the amount under the L/C, therefore, this discrepancy of date has no material bearing upon the case.
5. As regards the question, that because the goods had not been shipped by the foreign supplier according to the invoice and the L/C, which according to the appellants were 248 computers and could not be contained in four cartons as is shown in the shipping documents, therefore, the appellants asked the respondent-Bank, to refrain from negotiating the L/ C, and thus, on account of the deliberate omission to follow the instructions, the appellants have suffered losses and not liable to pay the amount, suffice it to say, that according to the L/C, it is not 248 computers which were imported by the appellant No,1, rather 248 PCS computer parts and accessories, Random Access Memory Ram etc., therefore, these could possibly be rapped in the four boxes, thus, on this account alone, it cannot be presumed that there was any short supply, therefore, the - L/C should not have been negotiated, particularly, when as mentioned earlier, it was an irrevocable letter of credit, payable at sight.
6. As regards the submission, that the Bank has negotiated the L/C.Without the insurance documents, it may be held that this has not been the case of the appellants in the leave application, therefore, as no substantial question of fact or law was raised by the appellants, resultantly, the Court below, had rightly dismissed the application and has allowed the suit of the amount, mentioned above. No error or illegality either factual or legal has been shown, calling for interference in appeal. Dismissed.