In order to recover the Section 9 and 22 suit loan, the schedule of installments, the bank (appellant) had approved the money to the defendant (the defendant) as financial assistance and through security the defendant gave his agricultural land. Mortgaged the bank and executed the finance contract. According to the agreement between the parties, the respondents had to pay regular annual installments to the bank through eight annual installments from 7 1998 to 7 7 2005, according to the respondents. But during those eight years until the judgment was pronounced at the end of the trial, the respondent paid only one token amount. The banking court refused to grant the defendant leave to defend the case and the bank The suit was ordered but the respondents had to schedule some installments to pay it. Liabilities, up to 7 2008 2008 The Payable Banking Court was not granted authority and authority under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance 2001. Pass such judgment and order and that too when the date of expiry of the buyback deal was 7 7 2008, the payment of dues by the Banking Court was made 7 2008 7, which was illegal and thus the appellant bank. The bank statements made by the plaintiff did not show that the defendant had paid some of the money to the bank after the suit was decided, thus, the amount paid to the defendant was paid by the defendants. After the money was deducted, the remaining girl still stood against the defendant's agreement between the parties. 7 2008 2008 the the which after which more from the respondent bank
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
