2002 PLP 493 (CLD)

NASEEM SIKANDAR, J.‑‑‑This regular first appeal assails a judgment and decree passed by the Judge, ,Banking Court‑II, .Lahore.

2. The respondent M/s. Citibank N.A. filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 7,51,149.08 against the defendant. It was claimed that he was allowed a running finance facility to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000 on mark‑up basis at a rate of 54 paisas per thousand per day. On account of his alleged default they filed the aforesaid suit.

3. The suit was resisted by the defendant/ present appellant on the ground that it had not been filed by an authorized person, the statement of account presented alongwith the plaint was not admissible on account of its having been prepared against the provisions of Banker's Book Evidence Act and that it contained an exaggerated amount.

4. Learned Judge Banking Court, Lahore after hearing the parties concluded that the statement of accounts had been prepared perfectly under the relevant law and did not contain any exaggerated amount. Thereafter the aforesaid judgment and decree was passed for the recovery of the aforesaid amount with cost alongwith mark‑up till the realization of the decretal amount.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at pre admission stage. It is the case of the appellant that the statement of accounts given in the form of certificate by the respondent indicated mark‑up due at Rs. 1,72,954.36 till date. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the claim of interest was unjustified as the statement did not reflect certain payments made by the appellant to the Bank from time to time. Learned counsel for the respondent‑Bank however, denies. It is stated that being a running financial facility only that amount is charged to mark‑up which is availed of from the account and that the total payments made by the appellant at Rs. 15,05,195 out of the running financial facility at Rs. 8,00,000 did not mean that any principal sum had been repaid inasmuch as there has never been a fixed principal sum. Also denies the claim that an exaggerated amount on mark‑up was given/stated before the trial Court. Lastly submits that if the only claim of the appellant is with regard to non‑reflection of a payment made to the Bank against the principal as well as mark‑up the same can very well be taken care of by the trial Court in execution proceedings.

6. We will agree. Mere fact that some payments allegedly made by the appellant to the Banking Company from whom running finance facility was availed can hardly be a good ground for interference by this Court in the first appeal. That issue, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents can effectively be looked into by the Executing Court when petition for execution is filed before it. That alone is no reason for an interference with the impugned judgment and decree. Particularly when the appellant has not been able to effectively controvert the observations of the trial Court that the statement of account was prepared in accordance with law and did not contain any exaggerated amount. Accordingly we will refuse to entertain the same.

7. Dismissed in limine. S.A.K./M‑961/L Appeal dismissed.