UNITED BANK LTD. Versus NISHAT CORPORATION LTD

1. The plaintiff had filed this suit for recovery of Rs.37,33,762.77 against six defendants. By order, dated 8th July, 1980 suit against defendants Nos. 2 to 6 has been dismissed. The defendant No. 1 had applied for leave to appear and defend the suit which was granted on 29‑1‑1984 on condition that the defendant No. i shall furnish security to the extent of the amount claimed in suit within six weeks. The defendant No. 1 has failed to furnish security within the time granted to it. Even today no application for extention of time has been filed. Mr. Mazhar Jafri the learned Advocate for the defendant No. 1 has requested that as defendant No. 1 is negotiating a settlement with the plaintiff sometime may be granted to finalize the same. Mr. Mamnoonul Hasan on instructions from his client who is present in Court, states that no compromise talks or negotiation for settlement are in progress between the parties. Be that as it may, the fact on record is that the defendant No. 1 has failed to furnish security in terms of order, dated 29‑1‑1984. This suit has been filed under the Banking Company (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 and is based on promissory note and the statement of account. The plaintiff has produced the original document including the or omisson note today copies of which are annexed with the plaint. As Order XXXVII, C.P.C. is applicable to the present suit and no security has been furnished the leave granted conditionally does not exist. in law. In these circumstances under Order XXXVII, Rule 2(2) the allegations made in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff is entitled to a decree.

2. The suit is accordingly decreed against defendant No. 1 for Rs.37,33,762.77 with interest at the rate of 13% per annum with quarterly rest from the date of suit till recovery and cost.

3. M. Y. H. Suit decreed.