2021 PLP 776 (CLD)

This is an appeal filed finder section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (the Ordinance) against judgment and decree dated 09.04.2011 passed by Banking Court, Multan whereby suit of the respondent bank was decreed against the appellants.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs.40,93,120/- on account of finance facility granted to the appellants. The appellants on service of summons filed a joint PLA. After hearing the arguments, the Banking Court dismissed the PLA and decreed the suit of the respondent bank on 09.04.2011. It was urged before us by the !learned counsel for the appellants that respondent bank did not file a complete statement of account with its plaint and that the statement of mark up account was not at all relied upon. In order to further elucidate point, he submitted that the tenor of the finance facility was from 01.03.2008 to 28.02.2009 as is apparent from the finance agreement but the statement of account appended with the plaint started from 02.01.2009 to 31.03.2009. The learned counsel for the respondent bank, when confronted with the statement of account had no answer. When asked to show us the statement of mark up account, he referred to an internal document of the bank titled 'Brief History of Client' wherein certain amounts were shown to have been charged as mark up from 01.01.2009 to 31.03.2010.

3. Under the terms of the Ordinance, it is obligatory upon the Financial Institutions to provide a complete statement of account of the finance facility upon which the suit is filed. In the present case, the finance facility started from 01.03.2008 and the statement of account, at a bare minimum, ought to have started from this date. Similarly, the statement of mark up should be a self-contained document reflecting the period for which mark up has been debited as also the amounts repaid by the customer, if any.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants also took the objection that the plaint was not in conformity with the section 9 of the Ordinance. We note that paragraph 10 of the plaint substantially complies with section 9 of the Ordinance. Be that as it may, the PLA filed by the appellants is also not in conformity with section 10 of the Ordinance warranting its dismissal in terms of section 10(6) of the Ordinance. A benefit of doubt is, however, given to the appellants as the respondent bank did not append the complete statement of account with the plaint.

5. In the circumstances, this appeal is allowed and judgment and decree dated 09.04.2011 passed by the Banking Court Multan is set aside with the result that suit filed by the respondent bank shall be deemed to be pending. Respondent bank is directed to file a complete statement of amount (principal and mark up) in the suit whereupon the appellants shall file an amended application for leave to defend within a period of ten days thereafter complying with the requirements of section 10 of the Ordinance. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Banking Court on 04.05.2015. KMZ/A-72/L Order accordingly.