Mrs. SHAMIM BANO vs STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (PAKISTAN) LIMITED S — 2025 CLD 1344 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.

Mrs. SHAMIM BANO VS STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (PAKISTAN) LIMITED S. 9(2)---Bankers' Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), Ss. 2(8) & 4---Plaint---Statement of Account to be "supported by"---Requirement---Scope---Verification/attestation of Statement of Account---Procedure---Customers filed appeal as the Banking Court, after dismissing their application to leave to defend, decreed suit against them, relying on submitted documents---Validity---Pertinently, S. 9(2) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 ('the Ordinance 2001') provides that the plaint shall be "supported" by a "Statement of Account" which shall be duly certified under S. 2(8) of Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1891 ('the Act 1891')---The "Statement of Account" is a continuous daily posted record showing in detail all debits , credits and balance as on the close of the period , giving dates and description, permitting customer to verify the Bank's record with his own---Therefore, the "statement of account" is a basic document that is filed by a financial institution before the Court in discharge of its mandatory duty under S. 9(2) of Ordinance, 2001---If such "statement of account" is not filed along with the plaint, a customer will obviously remain totally unaware of the record---In the present case, the Statement of Account filed by the Respondent-Bank with plaint in the suit, being incomplete and unsubscribed by the principal accountant or manager, did not fulfill the mandatory requirement of the provisions of S. 9(2) of the Ordinance 2001 and Ss. 2(8) & 4 of Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1891 ('the Act 1891'), therefore, the same did not qualify as a "Statement of Account" duly certified under the Act 1891, as it did not contain the details of entire transactions between the respondent /Bank and appellants/customers during finance limit period---Besides, Statement of Account was undated and had been subscribed allegedly by an attorney of the Respondent-Bank instead of being subscribed by its principal accountant or the manager, as required under S. 2(8) of the Act 1891---It was only the principal accountant or the manager of the financial institution who alone could certify the statement---Hence, a Statement of Account signed/subscribed by the Attorney of the bank cannot be treated as a duly certified copy within the meaning of S. 2(8) of the Act 1891---It appeared that the Trial/Banking Court had ignored the mandatory provisions of S. 9(2) of the Ordinance, 2001 and Ss. 2(8) and 4 of the Act, 1891 while decreeing the suit of the Respondent and had wrongly treated the Break-up of Account as Statement of Account which did not contain the requisite information and detail as required under proper statement of account; hence, the impugned judgment/decree passed by the Trial Court was not sustainable in law---Appellate / High Court set-aside the judgment and decree as well as dismissal order of application for leave to defend the suit and remanded the case to the Banking Court to decide the application of the appellants for leave to defend as well as the suit afresh, while the respondent-Bank would be at liberty to file proper Statement of Account in terms of S. 9(2) of the Ordinance, 2001 and Ss. 2(8) & 4 of the Act 1891, and in such case, the appellants may raise/file such objections thereon as they may deem fit---Appeal, filed by customer, was allowed accordingly.

Mrs. SHAMIM BANO vs STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (PAKISTAN) LIMITED S — 2025 CLD 1344 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLD