' MIAN HAMID PAROOQ, J.---This single judgment shall decide the present appeal (R.F.A. No,255 of 1999) as well as two connected appeals (R.F.A. Nos.256 and 257 of 1999), as common questions of law and facts are involved in all the appeals and they have arisen out of identical judgments.
2. Instant three appeals, instituted by Messrs Zakas (Pvt.) Ltd., Messrs P&B Carpets (Pvt.) Ltd. And Messrs Sanuks (Pvt.) Ltd. (hereinafter called as appellants), proceed against the judgments and decrees dated 17-4-1999, whereby the learned Banking Court, while decreeing three respondent's suits passed three different decrees for the recovery of Rs.26,83,512, Rs.12,41,740 and Rs.2,27,59,822 with costs.
3. Precisely stated, the facts leading to the filing of these three appeals are that Habib Credit and Exchange Bank Ltd., claiming to have taken over the assets and liabilities of three branches of the then BCCI, filed three suits for the recovery of Rs.26,83,512, Rs.12,41,740 and Rs.2,27,59,822, against the appellants, asserting therein that at the express request of the appellants certain financial facilities were granted to them by the then BCCI and it was assured that the financial facilities shall be adjusted out of the proceeds of the bills for goods exported. The appellant-Company executed promissory notes, by-back agreements and letters of hypothecation, rest of the defendants executed letters of guarantee and some of the defendants mortgaged their properties, the details of which have been mentioned in the plaint. According to the respondent-Bank, suit amounts became due against the appellants and the failure on the part of the appellants to liquidate the suit amounts necessitated the filing of the separate suits for recovery. During the pendency of the suits, the name of the bank was changed, which was designed as Bank Alflah Ltd. And, thus, the amended plaints, incorporating the name of Bank Alflah Ltd., in place of Habib Credit and Exchange Bank Ltd., were filed. Bank Alflah Ltd. Has been arrayed as respondent in the appeals. The appellants contested the suits by filing replies to the show-cause notices, inter alia, contending that there exists no relationship of customers and bank between the parties; that the suit is not maintainable and there was nothing payable to BCCI; that the statements of accounts are also engineered documents; that the mortgage deeds cannot be made basis of the claims; that the plaints have not been properly signed; that the documents relied upon by the bank are invalid and fictitious and that the defendants have filed the suits for recovery against the respondent-Bank regarding the same transactions.
3. The learned Banking Court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the documents appended with the plaints fully support the cases of the plaintiffs and the defendants have failed to establish a good prima facie case, dismissed their leave applications and resultantly passed the decrees for the recovery of different amounts, as noted above, against the appellants jointly and severally and in favour of the respondent-Bank, vide identical judgments and decrees dated 17-4- 1999, hence the present appeals.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the foreign bills were routed through the respondent-Bank to the foreign corresponding bank and as the respondent-Bank failed to realize the proceeds of export bills, therefore, the bank is not entitled to recover the suit amounts. He has added that the respondent-Bank even did not communicate the out come of the foreign bills to the appellants inasmuch as they were not returned, either realized or bounced, to them.
Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, while referring to the documents on record, has submitted that certain financial facilities were advanced to the appellant-Company, the appellants executed certain documents, properties were mortgaged by some of the appellants and they failed to pay the suit amounts, therefore, the suits have rightly been decreed. He has further submitted that the plea now raised by the appellants was neither taken in the replies to the show-cause notices nor urged before the learned Banking Court.
5. In view of the solitary contention, as noted above, raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, we have examined the record and particularly perused the replies to the show-cause notices, filed by the appellants, but are unable to find that the appellants have pleaded any such ground in their defence. Although in their replies to the show-cause notices various pleas, as noted above, were urged before the Banking Court, yet no such plea was agitated before the Banking Court. It is settled law that a person is precluded to raise altogether a new plea /ground before the appellate/revisional Court, 'which has not been raised before the lower forum. In view whereof we are not inclined to entertain the said plea at the appellate stage.
6. Even otherwise we find from the record that these are straightforward cases of availing of the financial facilities. The bank at some stage advanced different financial facilities to the appellants, the availing of which has not been denied by them. We have perused the documents on record, which were made basis by the respondent-Bank of their suits, and find that the documents such as demand promissory notes, agreements for financing and the letters of guarantees were signed by the appellants. The appellants neither denied their signatures on the said documents nor the execution of the said documents was ever disputed. Additionally, some of the appellants created mortgage in favour of the bank and confirmed their action of deposit of title deeds by executing "memorandums confirming the deposit of title deeds". It. Has been claimed by the respondent- Bank that the original title deeds are still in possession of the respondent-Bank, which assertion has not been denied/controverted by the appellants even at the time of hearing the appeals. The respondent-Bank has placed on record photo copies of the aforenoted memorandums and title documents, relating to the mortgaged properties, which evidences that, in fact, some of the defendants mortgaged their properties favouring respondent-Bank. The case of the respondent- Bank is duly supported by the certified copies of the statements of accounts, which have duly been verified as required by the provisions of the Bankers Book Evidence Act. Although the appellants have feebly stated in their replies to the show-cause notices that the statements of accounts are engineered documents, yet the learned counsel for the appellants was not able to show how these documents are unreliable. The appellants in their defence, before the learned Banking Court, did not challenge the particular entries in the statements of accounts and have baldly stated that no presumption of truth is attached to the statements of accounts. Even today the learned counsel neither agitated any plea regarding the statements of accounts nor is able to demonstrate that how the statements of accounts are incorrect inasmuch as no entry of statements of accounts has been challenged by him.
7. In view of the documents on record, as discussed above, we are of the view that the financial facilities, as mentioned in the suits, were advanced to the appellants, they executed the relevant documents and mortgaged their properties, the execution of the documents and the creation of mortgage have not been denied and they failed to liquidate the outstanding liabilities, therefore, the respondent-Bank was constrained to file the suits, which have rightly been decreed by the learned Banking Court.
8. We have also examined the impugned judgments and find that the learned Banking Court has dealt with every aspect of the cases and rendered its findings on the grounds agitated before it. It has rightly been held by the learned Banking Court that on the one hand the appellants have stated that they do not fall within the definition of customer or borrower or transacted any business with the respondent-Bank, yet they have admitted that they have filed a suit for recovery against the bank. Learned counsel could not point out any legal infirmity in the said judgments. We find that the impugned judgments are legal, unexceptionable, apt to the facts and circumstances of the case and were rightly passed by the learned Banking Court. We are not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgments, thus, the findings rendered therein are hereby confirmed.
9. Upshot of the above discussion is that all the appeals are devoid of merits, thus, the same are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10. Before parting with the judgment it may be observed that upon the examination of the record of R.F.A. No,256 of 1999, we find that the payment order dated 18-2-2002, amounting to Rs.12,56,745 was received by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court from the appellants. As the appeals have been dismissed therefore, Deputy Registrar (Judicial) is directed to hand over the said payment order to the duly authorized person of the respondent-Bank.