2002 PLP 669 (CLD)

Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 10, 15 & 21‑‑‑Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.230‑‑‑Decree for recovery of money‑‑‑Contention of appellant was that statement of accounts appended with plaint by the Bank was not correct; and that Bank had charged mark‑up for a period after the expiry of limit provided to the appellant‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Objection in respect of statement of accounts must be more specific‑‑‑No such objection had, been taken by appellant in his petition for leave to appear and defend‑‑‑Limited company was required by law to maintain its own accounts‑‑‑Appellant being a limited company had not filed its own account to controvert the statement of accounts filed by the Bank‑‑‑Such bald allegations without backing by any documentary proof could not be given any credence‑‑‑Banking Court had disallowed the mark‑up for 210 days in order to avoid charging of mark‑up twice‑‑‑Impugned judgment and decree being not open to exception High Court dismissed the appeal. Haq Nawaz Chatha for Appellant. S. Khalil Mehmood for Respondent. This appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 19‑2‑2001 passed by the learned Banking Court No.II, Lahore. We have gone through the impugned judgment and the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. It was firstly contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the statement of account appended with the plaint by the defendant‑Bank was not correct. According to him the appellant No.1 had been availing banking facilities from the defendant Bank for a number of years but the statement of account which has been filed with the plaint started from 29‑6‑1998. It was his case that the defendant‑Bank had allowed a fresh facility only for the purpose of adjusting the earlier facility and the amount of Rs.10,000,000 shown as a debit entry on 29‑6‑1998 was on account of the aforesaid facility.

2. The objections of the learned counsel in respect of the statement of account are not well‑founded and are not supported by the record. We note that only vague assertions have been made before us by learned counsel for the appellants. He was asked td be more specific as to the objections on the statement of account. He was also asked to show if any specific objections had been taken in respect of statement of account in the petition filed by the appellants/defendants seeking leave to appear and defend. He was unable to refer to any specific objections. He was then asked to show us if the appellant No.1 which is a limited company, had filed its own statement of account to controvert the statement of account filed by the Bank. This question was put to learned counsel because a limited company is by law required to maintain accounts. Learned counsel conceded that no such statement of accounts had been filed in Court on behalf of the appellants/defendants to substantiate the allegations made in their application seeking leave to appear and defend. In this view of the matter the bald assertions made by learned counsel for the appellants without backing by any documentary proof, cannot be given any credence.

3. It was next argued by learned counsel for the appellants that mark‑up had been charged by the defendant Bank for a period after the expiry of the limit provided to the appellant No.

1. This assertion is also not substantiated from the record. We also note that in order to avoid the charging of mark‑up twice, the learned Banking Court has disallowed the mark‑up for 210 days amounting to Rs.13,57,

511. On this score also we find that the judgment and decree are not open to exception.

4. As a consequence we find no merit in this appeal which is, therefore, dismissed. S.A.K./B‑73/L Appeal dismissed.