1986 PLP 1262 (MLD)

‑‑Art.118‑‑Pardanashin lady, burden of proof‑‑Where a Pardanashin illiterate lady denies contents of document signed by her, burden, held, to prove that she had full knowledge of contents thereof would be upon person taking advantage of such document. P L D 1985 Kar. 431 and P L D 1967 Kar. 329 rel. (d) Pardanashin lady ‑‑‑ Plea of being Purdanashin lady, held, would not be available to a 'lady who had been Managing Director of a Company and had been .running affairs thereof for a number of years. (e) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979) ‑‑‑S.2‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, R 3‑‑Creditor and debtor‑‑Leave to defend suit‑‑No valid defence having been raised by defendants, averments in plaint, held, had to be taken as proved‑ Leave to defend suit was refused and suit as prayed for was decreed with interest thereon against defendants. Pishori for Plaintiff. Mohsin Tayebally for Defendants. The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs.82,11,132 under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The defendants have filed applications under Order XXXVII, rule 3, C.P.C. So far the defendant No.1 is concerned it is the company to which credit facilities were granted and in its two accounts statements of which have been filed, a total sum of Rs.82,11,132 is due to the plaintiff. Mr. Mohsin Tayebally the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 has contended that the statement of account relating to Account No.1759 starts from 25‑8‑1982 and the other Account No.100414 starts from 30‑12‑1981 and debit balances have been brought forward therefore unless full statements of account have been furnished it is not possible to look into it and find out its correctness. Mr. Pishori, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has pointed out that alongwith the plaint the letters of defendant No.1, dated 22‑2‑1983 and 23‑11‑1983 Annexures A and H to the plaint have been filed in which the defendant No.1 has admitted its liability to the extent of Rs.8,350,000 and in Annexure C a letter of April 11, 1984 it has also admitted the outstanding balance of Rs.62,50,268.93 in which it has stated that the defendant No.1 :w making efforts to repay this amount. The defendant No.1 has no where denied the amount claimed by the plaintiff. In these circumstances the objection raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff No.1 has no force. So far defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are concerned they are the guarantors. The learned counsel has contended that the letter of guarantee was signed in blank and delivered to the bank which it has filled in afterward. According to the learned counsel, the plaintiff had no authority to fill it. The defendants admit their signature on the letter of guarantee and mere statement without any supporting facts tog show that it was blank and delivered to the plaintiff, is not sufficient to dispute their liability. In these circumstances I do not see any force in their contention. The defendant No.2 has filed a separate application in which although she admits her signature on the letter of guarantee she states that she 'is illiterate, pardanashin lady and her signature was obtained on the letter of guarantee by here sons without disclosing her the nature of the document and explaining its contents. On this basis she has denied her liability under the deed of guarantee. Mr. Abdul Satter, the learned counsel has for the defendant No.2 has contended that as she is~ a Pardanashin lady the burden is upon the plaintiff to show that she has executed with knowledge of the contents of the document. The learned counsel has referred to PLD 1985 Kar. 431 and PLD 1967 Kar. 329, there can be no cavil with the proposition of the law that where a Pardanashin illiterate lady denies the contents of a document signed by her then the burden is upon the person who takes advantage of that document, to prove that she had full knowledge of the content's of these documents. Mr. Pishori has pointed out that the defendant No.1 had been the Managing Director of the Company till 1978. In this regard resolutions of the company have also been produced which show that she had been managing the affairs of the company. Another letter, dated 9‑12‑1982 has been produced by the plaintiff in which she has explained the misconduct of other defendants and main grievance was that the defendants Nos. 3 to 5 have stopped payment to her on the ground that company was running in loss. This letter establishes that the defendant No.2 is a lady‑well‑aware of the management and affair of the company. From her letter, dated 9‑12‑1984 it is clear that she was fully aware of the business, liabilities and assets of the company. Moreover the plaintiff had not obtained her signature on the letter o guarantee. It was obtained by defendants Nos. 3 and 4 who are he sons and they have taken advantage of this document. In these circumstances no valid defence has been raised by the defendant No.2. A11 the applications filed by the defendants are dismissed. In view of the provision under Order XXXVII, rule 3 as no leave has been granted, the averments made in the plaint are to be taken as admitted. Therefore the suit is decreed for a sum of Rs.82,11,132 with interest at the rat of 14$ per annum from the date of the suit till recovery. At the firs instance preliminary decree under Order XXXIV, shall be prepared. A. A. Suit decreed