2004 PLP 1594 (CLD)

Ahmed Waheed Khan for Appellants. Haq Nawaz Chatta for Respondent. Date of hearing: 29th September, 2003. MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.‑‑‑Respondent on 5‑11‑2001, brought a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.34,36,263 against the appellant on account of short term finance facility granted by the respondent to the appellant, under sanction limit of Rs.5,000,000 out of which, the appellant had been availing amount from time to time. The appellant moved an application for the grant of leave to appear and defend, which application, has been disallowed. However, learned Banking Court, instead of awarding a decree to the tune of suit amount, has allowed the same, to the extent of Rs.23,93,860.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants, does not deny the availing of the facility or execution of relevant documents and the correspondence exchanged between the parties, but states that the appellants had made payments of substantial amount for the discharge of its liability, but these amounts have not been excluded as these are not reflected in the statement of account filed with the suit. Thus it is submitted that the liability of appellants was only Rs.12,98,160 and out of this amount too, the appellants had admittedly paid Rs.9,00,000 resultantly, the outstanding liability is only Rs.3,98,160.

3. When questioned, as to how does the appellant works out the above amount of Rs.12,98,160, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to letter dated 15‑6‑2000, written by the respondent‑Bank in which, it is stated that due to remission on account of charge of compound interest amounting to Rs.7,78,413, the liability of the appellant has been finally reduced to Rs.21,72,

051. But Rs.7,78,403 have not been practically deducted from the statement of account. Besides, this remission in the mark‑up, has only been granted for the period commencing from November, 1996, whereas the bank had been illegally charging, the mark‑up right from the beginning since May 1993 and therefore, excluding such compound interest, the liability of the appellant stands reduced to Rs.12,98,160.

4. We are afraid, this contention has no force, as a matter of fact, the parties had finally settled the accounts and on account of issuance of letter dated 15‑6‑2000 by the bank, the liability of the appellant was reduced Rs.21,72,

051. This included the remission of mark‑up for the period commencing from November, 1996 till the date of settlement. Because it is this amount which the appellant was questioning for the reason that in its own letter dated 15‑9‑1996, the appellant had admitted his liability towards the principle amount at a sum of Rs.3,000,500 plus accrued mark‑up and according to the account statement submitted by the appellant with the leave application, the amount \of mark-up is Rs.8,73,686; it is only this amount, which the bank has made claim about, and nothing has been added over and above in the shape of compound mark-up on this amount, thus on the aforesaid date, the appellant was obliged to make the payment of the said amount Rs.3,874,

186. However, after adjusting the remission of mark-up on account of compound interest, the bank had propounded the claim, which was considered by the learned Banking Court and had further been reduced to Rs.23,93,

860. In the light of above, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. M.A.W./D-68/L Appeal dismissed.