SAFDAR ALI JALBANI vs ZTBL Ss — 2024 CLD 845 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

SAFDAR ALI JALBANI VS ZTBL Ss. 9 & 10(4)---Suit for recovery filed by the bank---Application for leave to appear and defend the suit---Substantial question(s) of law or fact, non-raising of---Effect---Banking Court dismissed application for leave to defend filed by the customer/ defendant, and decreed the suit filed by the bank---Validity---After the plaintiff / bank filed its banking suit, the appellant (customer /defendant) was required to raise substantial questions of law or fact in its application for leave to defend, failing which the Banking Court would pass judgment and decree against him /defendant---Contents of the application for leave to defend submitted by appellant /defendant showed that he failed to raise his defence in terms of S.10(4) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, which (application) required him to expressly set out the amount of finance availed by him, the amounts paid by him to the Bank (plaintiff/respondent) , identify the amount actually payable, identify the disputed amount, etc.---However, application filed by the appellant /defendant was silent on all said points---Impugned judgment and decree had been passed on proper appreciation of facts and law and the Single Judge of the High Court did not make any error while passing the same---First appeal, filed by the defendant/customer, was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 CLD 845 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH SAFDAR ALI JALBANI VS ZTBL Ss. 9 & 10(4)---Bankers' Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), Preamble---Suit for recovery filed by the bank---Application for leave to appear and defend the suit, dismissal of---Scope---Banking Court dismissed application for leave to defend filed by the customer/ defendant, and decreed the suit filed by the bank---Plea of the appellant/defendant was that the banking suit pertained to the finance of previous years---Validity---Plaint and the supporting documents filed by the bank, included, inter alia, the Statement of Account duly verified under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891, clearly mentioning relevant record/evidence like the finance having been disbursed and the opening entry reflected in the statement as the first credit entry---There was no carry forward entry in the account, negating appellant's submission that Bank was claiming finance advanced in prior years, therefore, appellant's plea that the banking suit pertained to the finance of previous years carried no weight---Impugned judgment and decree had been passed on proper appreciation of facts and law and the Single Judge of the High Court did not make any error while passing the same---First appeal, filed by the defendant/customer, was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 CLD 845 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH SAFDAR ALI JALBANI VS ZTBL S. 10(12)---Suit for recovery filed by the bank---Application for leave to appear and defend the suit, dismissal of---Decreeing the suit forthwith---Scope---Banking Court dismissed application for leave to defend filed by the customer/ defendant, and on the same date decreed the suit filed by the bank---Plea of the appellant (customer / defendant) was that the dismissal of the leave to defend application and the passing of the judgment and decree on the same date constituted an irregularity---Held, that argument of the appellant had no legs to stand as S.10(12) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, clearly stated, in no uncertain terms, that where the application for Leave to Defend was rejected or where a defendant failed to fulfil the conditions attached to the grant of leave to defend, the Banking Court shall forthwith proceed to pass judgment and decree in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant---Accordingly, in the present (banking) suit, when the Banking Court rejected appellant's leave to defend application, it was well within its powers to pass judgment and decree in banking suit---Impugned judgment and decree had been passed on proper appreciation of facts and law and the Single Judge of the High Court did not make any error while passing the same---First appeal, filed by the defendant/customer, was dismissed accordingly.

SAFDAR ALI JALBANI vs ZTBL Ss — 2024 CLD 845 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLD