Find a Lawyer

Suit No.872 of 1985, decided on 18th March, 1987.

--O.XXXVII, R.2--Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979), 3.2--Suit for recovery--One defendant admitting that loan in question, taken by him from plaintiff, was outstanding against him for quite some time and in spite of his efforts he had not been able to liquidate same--Defendants making no ground for defence and requesting for some time to repay loan to plaintiff--Suit decreed against defendants jointly and severally with direction that decretal amount should be paid within six months.

Zahid Hussain Burhani for Plaintiff.

Muneer Malik for Defendant No.1.

Date of hearing: 18th March, 1987.

The plaintiff has filed this application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 C.P.C. The plaintiff has claimed Rs.2,721,900 on the ground that the defendant No.1 has his firm's account with the plaintiff wtn6h was opened on 7th March, 1982. The defendants No.2,3 and 4 are the real brothers of the defendant No.1. At the request of the defendants and in consideration of the instruments executed and security furnished by the defendants jointly arid severally, the plaintiffs granted to the defendant No.1 in his firm's account loan facilities for financing their export under the Export Refinancing Scheme and also allowed him over draft facilities. As security for repayment of the over-draft, the defendant No.1 executed and delivered to the plaintiff a pronote, letter of continuity, letter of guarantee and agreement of hypothecation of goods. Personal guarantees of the defendants No.3 and 4 were also furnished. Equitable mortgage of the 'property mentioned in paragraph 7 of the plaint was also created by the defendant who executed a memorandum of confirmation for deposit of title deed. The total amount of advance made under the Export Refinancing Scheme and the overdraft account was Rs.16,84,733.77. As the defendants were unable to clear their account the defendant No.1 by way of admission and acknowledgement of his liability to the plaintiff promised to repay the same, executed and delivered to the plaintiff on or abbot 26-3-1984 a set of fresh documents including a demand promissory note, letter of pronote, letter of continuity and hypothecation agreement. On 30-9-1985 a sum of ' R.s.27, 02, 72.59 was sue in respect of which statements of account under both the heads have been filed ass Annexures 'R' and 'S' to the plaint. The plaintiff has further charged Rs.19,147.41 being the interest of the rate of 4% per annum from 1-2-1975 upto the filing of the suit. This makes the total amount of claim as Rs.27,21,900. The defendants have filed application under Order XXXVII Rule No 3 C.P.C. They have taken the plea that the documents relied by the plaintiffs were executed in respect of and her firm, of the defendants namely international Commodities Exports. According to the defendants these documents were executed in blank and have been scrumptiously utilised by the plaintiff for the purposes of this suit. No document worth the name has been filed by the defendants to show that there was an account in the name of international Commodities Exports and any over draft was utilised by the defendants in this Firm. Furthermore, it is unthinkable that a huge amount in millions will be advanced to the defendants without obtaining any security document. The defendants have not pointed out that they had offered no security to the plaintiff in respect of the loan advanced which is the subject-matter of the present suit, nor they stated which security they had offered for this loan. Furthermore Mr. Burhani has filed counter-affidavit denying these allegations and has filed a letter of the defendant No.1 dated 2-3-1986 in which he has clearly admitted that there is a loan of Rs.27 lacs outstanding for quite some time and in spite of his efforts he has not been able to liquidate the same. He has made certain proposals and showed his willingness to repay the said loan. Mr. Munawar Malik admits this letter and does not deny that it has been written by the defendant No.1. In view of these facts and circumstances no ground for defence has been made out. Mr. Munawar Malik requests that some time may be granted for payment of the decretal amount. He further stated that the defendant No.1 is negotiating sale of his Islamabad property and no sooner the sale is concluded the sale consideration will be deposited in Court or will be paid to the plaintiff. Subject to this statement Mr. Burhani has no objection if six months time is granted to the defendants to pay the decretal amount. I therefore, decree the suit' against the defendants jointly arid severally in the sum of Rs.27,21,900 with interest at 14% per annum from the date of the suit till recovery with cost. The decretal amount shall, be paid by the defendants within six months.

M.Y.H./B-23/K Suit decreed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.