Pakistan Case Law
2002 CLD 1270

MUHAMMAD YUSAF vs A. D. B. P.

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2002 CLD 1270
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Regular First Appeal No, 896 of 2001
Date2002-05-06
Judge(s)Jawwad S. Khawaja and Abdul Shakoor Paracha
ResultAppeal dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This civil appeal was filed against the decision of the Banking Court rejecting the appellant-borrower's plaint. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether a borrower instituting a suit in the Banking Court is required to append a statement of account with the plaint under the governing banking law. The Court examined Section 9(1) and Section 9(2) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001, noting that when instituting a suit, even a borrower is obligated to support the plaint with a statement of account. The Court observed that the only concession granted to a borrower, as opposed to a financial institution, is that the borrower's statement of account need not be certified under the Bankers Books Evidence Act 1891. Since the appellant-borrower admittedly failed to file any statement of account alongside the plaint, the Banking Court acted lawfully and was fully justified in rejecting it. Consequently, the Lahore High Court upheld the rejection of the plaint and dismissed the appeal.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Is a borrower required to file a statement of account along with a plaint in a Banking Court under Section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001?
  • Must a statement of account filed by a borrower in a Banking Court be certified under the Bankers Books Evidence Act 1891?
  • Can a Banking Court reject a borrower's plaint for failure to attach a statement of account?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 9(1), Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001
  • Section 9(2), Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001
  • Bankers Books Evidence Act 1891
rejection of plaintstatement of accountBanking Courtborrower suitfinancial institutionBankers Books Evidence Act

ORDER

' The point on which this appeal was admitted to regular hearing has been noted in admission order. Dated 20-12-2001. This order is in continuation of the previous order. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank at the outset has referred to subsections (1) and (2) of section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance. 2001 to support the impugned order rejecting the plaint filed by the appellant. For facility of reference the aforesaid statutory provisions are reproduced as under: "(1) Where a customer or a financial institution commits a default in fulfillment of any obligation with regard to any finance, the financial institution or, as the case may be, the customer, may institute a suit in the Banking Court by presenting a plaint which shall be verified on oath, in the case of a financial institution by the Branch Manager or such other officer of the financial institution as may be duly authorized in this behalf by power of attorney or otherwise.

(2) The plaint shall be supported by a statement of account which in the case of a financial institution shall be duly certified under the Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891 (XVIII of 1891), and all other relevant documents relating to the grant of finance. Copies of the plaint, statement of account and other relevant documents shall be filed with the Banking Court in sufficient numbers so that there is one set of copies for each defendant and one extra copy."

2. It does appear from the aforesaid statutory provisions that even where a borrower files a suit he is required to append with the plaint a statement of account. The said statement, however, need not be certified in the manner prescribed under the Bankers Books Evidence, 1891. This is the only concession available to the borrower.

3. In the present case, admittedly no statement of account was filed by the appellant-plaintiff. In the circumstances, the learned Banking Court was justified in rejecting the plaint.

4. For the foregoing reason this appeal is dismissed.

Cited by 9 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.