2005 PLP 1021 (CLD)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 9 & 10‑‑‑Recovery of bank loan‑‑‑Death of original loanee‑‑ Liability of legal heirs of deceased loanee‑‑ Application for leave to defend the suit‑‑‑Arguable plea, non‑raising of‑‑‑Suit for recovery of loan was filed against the legal heirs of the original loanee as he had died‑‑‑Suit was decreed by the Banking Court in favour of the bank‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Loan was secured by the original loanee, therefore, the legal heirs were not in a position to deny execution of documents by the original loanee‑‑‑Legal heirs had inherited the property of the original loanee and they had not raised any arguable plea before Banking Court in their application for leave to defend the suit‑‑‑Banking Court had rightly dismissed the application anal the suit was rightly decreed in favour of the bank as no infirmity or illegality was committed by the Banking Court--‑Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Hafiz Khalil Ahmad for Appellant. Brief facts out of which present appeal arises are that the predecessor‑in‑interest of the appellant secured loan from the respondents‑Bank amounting to Rs.2,00,000 and an agreement was also executed between the original loanee and the respondents‑Bank. According to the terms and conditions of the respondents‑Bank, the original loanee has to pay the loan to the respondents‑Bank in easy instalments. The original loanee has since been died. The land was mortgaged with the respondents‑Bank and the same was inherited by the appellant. The respondents‑Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3, 21, 632 against the appellant before the Judge Banking' Court No. 2, Sargodha. The appellant had filed an application for leave to defend the suit before the Banking Court. The learned Banking Court refused to grant leave to defend the suit and decreed the suit of the respondents‑Bank vide judgment and decree dated 4‑5‑1998. Hence the present appeal.

2. The learned counsel of the appellant submits that the original loanee did not secure loan from the respondent‑Bank and respondent‑Bank prepared the fictitious documents qua sanctioning the loan in the name of original loanee but this fact, was not properly scrutinized and appreciated by the Banking Court in the impugned judgment and decree. He further submits that the appellant No.3 was minor at the time when the suit was filed against the appellants. He further submits that this fact was also not considered by the learned Banking Court in its true perspective. He further submits that the respondent Bank failed to bring on record security secured by the respondent‑Bank from the original loanee.

3. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the appellant and perused the record.

4. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent‑Bank did not enter appearance despite notices, therefore, ex parte order is passed against the respondent‑Bank.

5. It is admitted fact that the loan was secured by the original loanee, therefore, the appellants are not in a position to deny the execution of the documents by the original loanee. It is also admitted fact that the appellants inherited the property of the original loanee. Even otherwise we have re‑examined the application for leave to defend the suit of the appellants before the Banking Court wherein the appellants did not raise any arguable plea before the Banking Court, therefore, the Banking Court was justified to decree the suit against the appellants after proper appreciation of evidence on record as is evident from the contents of the impugned judgment and decree. Learned counsel of the appellants failed to point out any infirmity or illegality committed by the learned Banking Court. Therefore, we do not find any force in this appeal. The same is hereby dismissed. M.H./S‑6/L Appeal dismissed.