2002 PLP 1692 (CLD)

JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.‑ This appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 5‑3‑2002 passed by the learned Banking Court No. II, Lahore. The said decree was passed in a suit filed by the respondent‑Bank seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.7,685,152, together with other amounts as prayed for in the plaint. The suit was filed against the appellant and 12 other defendants. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Mst. Alam Bibi (defendant No.13) alone. The case of the respondent‑Bank against the appellant was that she had created a mortgage in favour of the Bank to secure the liabilities of Construction Management Associates (respondent No.2). The original title deed of the property in question was delivered to the respondent‑Bank. Furthermore, the appellant also executed a registered mortgage deed and general power of attorney both dated 4‑4‑1998 and a memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 3‑4‑1998.

2. Before us learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant had not, in fact, executed the mortgage deed, power of attorney or memorandum of deposit of title deeds. It was also denied that the original title deeds had been delivered to the respondent‑Bank. The fact that the title deeds together with original record of the C.D.A. relating to the property in question were with the respondent‑Bank, was explained by stating that Azizullah Khan respondent No‑13, who is a friend of the appellant's son, had obtained the appellant's original title deeds. Today learned counsel for the appellant stated that the title documents were handed over to Azizullah Khan in order to enable him to show to some Government Department that he was a person of means. The title documents it may be noted, were handed over by the appellant and were deposited with the respondent‑Bank in 1998. Thereafter, nothing whatsoever was done by the appellant to retrieve the title documents. However, it was only after the Bank filed its suit on 18‑5‑2000 that a few weeks later an F.I.R. being F.I.R. No. 18 of 2000 dated 7‑7‑2002, was lodged. It was stated therein that the title documents had been given to the aforesaid Azizullah Khan but 'had been misplaced. The story set up by the appellant, to put to mildly, is far‑‑fetched and not credible. The timing of the afore-noted F.I.R. also shows that it was meant to thwart the recovery suit filed by the respondent‑Bank. Even the explanation given for handing over the title, documents to Azizullah Khan, is not plausible. We do not see how Azizullah Khan could have established that he was a man of means by showing .title documents of a house owned by the appellant. Admittedly, the appellant is not, in any manner, related to Azizullah Khan. Furthermore, even if title documents had been delivered to Azizullah Khan for such spurious purpose, there was no justification for letting the same remain with Azizullah Khan for a period of almost two years until the above‑noted F.I.R. was registered on 7‑7‑2000.

3. In view of the above circumstances, we find that the case set up by the appellant, is not plausible and has merely been advanced with the object of frustrating the recovery of the respondent‑Bank's outstanding. We, therefore, find that the impugned decree" is not open to exception. This appeal, as a consequence, is dismissed. S.A.K./A‑555/L Appeal dismissed.