1991 PLP 1260 (CLC)

C.M.A. No. 7117 of 1989 is an application for leave to defend filed by Defendant No.1, while C.M.A. No.7118 of 1989 is an application for leave to defend filed by Defendant No.2.

2. National Bank of Pakistan, at the request of Defendant No.2, who is the General Attorney of Defendant No.1, granted a loan to Defendant No.1 upto a limit of Rs.6,00,000 (Rupees six lacs) repayable in seven years in quarterly instalments of Rs.25,000 each with interest @ 11% per annum against the execution of pronote on behalf of the proprietary concern of Defendant No.l. Defendant No.2 had guaranteed repayment of said loan alongwith interest through Letter of Guarantee dated 2‑8‑1983. Defendant No.1 executed registered Mortgage Deed in favour of plaintiff with respect to the plot on which the poultry farm was situated. Defendant No.1 had utilised the loan, but made timely payments. Hence a sum of Rs.1.0,20,757 is due from him. The loan was recalled by legal notice dated 26‑4‑1989. Hence this suit.

3. The Defendants'. counsel Mr. Habibullah Sammo has raised the plea that Defendant No.2 was Attorney of Defendant No.1, but he had not signed these documents in his capacity as Attorney and, therefore, cannot bind Defendant No.l. Besides, Defendant No.1 being the proprietor of the poultry farm, is himself liable for the claim and Defendant No.2, who is only an Attorney, cannot be made liable for this amount. The defence set up by the Defendant is on the face of it illusory and does not raise any triable issue. Defendant No.1 has executed registered General Power of Attorney in favour of Defendant No.2, photostat copy of which has been produced. The same has been admitted by Defendant No.l. The mere fact that Defendant No.2 has signed the documents as Proprietor of the Poultry Farm and has not shown himself the General‑Attorney of Defendant No.1, does not take away the power of Defendant No.2 to act and sign as an Attorney of Defendant No.l. Moreover, Defendant No.2 has also stood as guarantor and h as executed Letter of Guarantee and he is also liable in his capacity as a Guarantor. Defendant No.1 has also executed a registered Mortgage Deed with respect to the plot in question. I am, therefore, of the clear view that the Defendants are not entitled to the leave to defend the suit. Hence C.M.As. Nos.7117 of 1989 and 7118 of 1989 are dismissed. The result is that the Plaintiff's suit is decreed against Defendants Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally for a sum of Rs.10,20,757 with interest C(~ 11% per annum with quarterly rests till realisation of decretal amount. Preliminary decree in Form 5‑A of Appendix 'B' to the C.P.C. is passed. In case the decretal amount is not paid within six months, final decree for sale of 1he"mortgaged property shall follow. H.B.T./N‑356/K????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Suit decreed.