2022 CLD 1494
S. 9---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.II, R. 2---Suit for recovery of finance---Suit to include the whole claim---Separate suit for each finance facility---Scope---Appellant contended that the Bank had filed separate suits regarding various finance facilities which act was hit by the provisions of O. II, R. 2, C.P.C.---Validity---Each finance facility might give rise to an independent cause of action, therefore, the contention that separate suits could not be filed under S. 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, which was a special law, was misconceived---Such was primarily for the reason that default with reference to a particular facility could take place on different dates giving rise to an independent cause of action---Moreover, each facility might be backed by some common and different banking documents and even statement of accounts with respect to each facility was maintained separately---Objection of the appellant was turned down.
S. 9---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Os. XXXIV & XXXVII---Suit for recovery of finance---Suit relating to mortgages of immovable property---Summary procedure on negotiable instruments---Scope---Appellant objected that the suit filed in Banking Court was not competent since it was filed under S. 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 read with Os. XXXIV & XXXVII of C.P.C.---Validity---Contention of the appellant was without force as mere mentioning of provisions of law in the title of the suit was immaterial---Even otherwise, provisions of the C.P.C. were applicable as far as the same were not expressly excluded by the provisions of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 and mentioning of related Orders of the C.P.C. did not amount to any illegality---Objection of the appellant was turned down.
Ss. 9 & 10--- Suit for recovery of finance--- Leave to defend---Scope---Appellants assailed judgment and decree passed by Banking Court whereby the suit for recovery instituted by bank was decreed---Validity---Sanctioning and availing of the Letter of Credit Facility was not denied in the PLA (Petition for Leave to Appear)---Mere bald and general assertion that blank documents were executed by the appellants could not be accepted against the executed finance and security documents appended with the plaint---Partial payments made regarding the Letters of Credit in question by one of the appellants was admitted---Appellants, in their PLA, had not fulfilled the requirements of Ss. 10(4), 10(5) & 10(6) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 thereby entailing penal consequence by way of rejection of the PLA as stipulated in S. 10(7) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---No substantial question of law and fact was raised in the PLA necessitating the grant of PLA and recording of evidence---Banking Court had lawfully and rightly passed the decree in favour of the bank
0 Comments