Sections 9, 10 and 22 apply for leave to claim a case for debt collection The bank filed a lawsuit for collection of the loan amount with the accumulated and future markup and the defendant defended the case. Submission for leave was filed and the banking court ruled that the plaintiff's bank filed a petition in favor of the plaintiff bank and the defendant in favor of the plaintiff bank regarding the implementation of any document in favor of the plaintiff bank. And he clearly admitted that he regularly paid his money to the plaintiff's bank. In the petition for leave for defense, it was not stated how much financial benefit he had received and how much he had paid. The plaintiff did not attach any receipt or document related to the financing facility, The law provided in Section 10 of the Institution was compulsory. (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance, 2001, The request made by the defendant was contradictory to himself and he was blowing heat in the same breath is cold, the facts and figures mentioned in the memorandum of appeal, the defendant. The petition for leave for defense could not be found anywhere, in the appeal, an entirely different position was taken with some money and data which was missing in the application for leave. The defendant did not come to the court with clear hands and it was only a futile exercise that prevented the plaintiff / bank from recovering the arrears when the defendant himself admitted that he was paying the dues as per the law. The appeal was plausible and the law passed by the banking court was in accordance with the law and
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
