IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,

LARKANA

Before:

Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar.

Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana.

Civil Appeal No. D- 03 of 2021.

Abdul Rasheed Arain. ………….………….....Appellant.

Versus

ZTBL Warah Branch and others. ……….......…..….Respondents.

Mr. Ghulam Yasin Junejo, Advocate for appellant.

Mr. Oshaq Ali Sangi, Assistant Attorney General.

Mr. Ali Nawaz Junejo, Advocate for respondents along with Mr. Allah Bux Junejo Incharge Legal & Litigation Unit, ZTBL Larkana.

Date of hearing: 28.02.2024.

Date of order: 28.02.2024.

ORDER

Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J-. This Civil Appeal has been preferred by the appellant Abdul Rasheed Arain against judgment dated 12.4.2021 passed by Judge of the Banking Court No.I, Larkana, in Suit No. 181 of 2020, re; ZTBL Warah v. Abdul Rasheed Arain, whereby he allowed/ decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and dismissed application under Section 10 (leave to defend) filed by the appellant.

2. The facts giving rise to this Civil Appeal are briefly that the respondent/ bank filed a suit under Section 9 of the Financial Institution (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance, 2001, for recovery of Rs.5,56,270/- against the appellant. It is case of bank that the appellant availed finance facility on markup basis against pass book No.527416 of agricultural land measuring 16-24 acres situated in Deh Potho of taluka Warah, District Kamber-Shahdadkot. The loans were refundable by 07.01.2016 and 07.01.2020 respectively but the defendant/ appellant committed default in re-payment of loan and plaintiff/ bank filed suit for recovery.

3. On admission of the suit, the summons were issued to the defendant/ appellant through all modes and upon service of notice the defendant/ appellant put his appearance before learned trial Court and filed an application for leave to defend, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.3.2021 and plaintiff/ bank was directed to file exparte proof. Ultimately, the suit was decreed vide judgment dated 12.4.2021.

4. At very outset learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant submitted that the appellant was regularly depositing the installments towards repayment of the loan, but due to low rate of crop and COVID-19, he failed to repay the finance. Per learned counsel, the appellant is however still ready to repay the loan in easy installments after verification of the record by respondent/ bank with regard to the installments already paid by the appellant.

5. Conversely, the counsel for respondent/ bank submitted that the appellant/ defendant availed loan of Rs.7,00,000/-, out of which he repaid an amount of Rs.500,590/- and since he failed to repay the remaining loan amount due against him on due date, the bank filed suit for recovery, which was allowed vide judgment dated 12.04.2021, thereby decree for recovery of Rs.5,31,155/- along with costs of suit and cost of funds as admissible under Section 3 of the Ordinance w.e.f. 31.1.2020 till realization of amount was passed against appellant/ defendant and that presently the execution proceedings are pending adjudication. He further added that, there is no provision of installments in repayment of the loan, which has already been decreed by the Court of law. However, looking at the financial position of the appellant and his past conduct the submissions so advanced by appellant’s counsel may be acceptable to the bank subject to strict adherence to the payment terms agreed with the appellant.

6. Accordingly, in view of the submissions made by both the learned counsels this appeal stands dismissed. However, the respondent/ bank is directed to sit with the appellant to verify the record with regard to repayment of the loan amount by the appellant and thereafter extend an agreed / deferred payment schedule to the appellant/ defendant to deposit outstanding loan amount (which will be due against him after verification of record) in five equal installments. Further, failure to payment as per schedule, will give cause to the bank to initiate/ continue pecuniary execution proceedings against the appellant for the balance decreetal amount.

Judge

Ansari