Preamble :
2009 CLD 856 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
FAYSAL BANK LIMI’TED Vs. GENERTECH PAKISTAN LTD.
Ss.9 & 10—Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891)—Preamble—Recovery of bank loan—Granting of leave to appear in suit—Scope—Provisions of S.9 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, are mandatory—Two separate duties are cast upon plaintiff in suit filed under S.9 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, firstly to slate in plaint the finance availed and amount paid back and balance amount outstanding—Plaint must be supported by statement of accounts which, in case of financial institution, must be duly certified under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891—Such statement of accounts should not only show each individual transaction separately whereby any amount was availed (or otherwise debited) or paid back (or otherwise credited) but also such statement of accounts must support claim in plaint—Each and every entry credit or debit must be satisfactorily identified not only as to its date but also its mode and manner—Such identification must be sufficient to make statement of accounts comprehensive to any reasonable person reading the same—In order to satisfy minimum requirements of S.9(2) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and to avoid rejection of plaint, statement of accounts appended. therewith must specifically identify amounts advanced or paid to customer or any sum’ expended or incurred for or on his behalf as debit entry along with all payments received from customer or on his behalf as a separate credit entries with final balance—Deficiency, if any, in due identification of individual entries may give rise to triable issue subject to a bona fide dispute raised by defendants in respect thereof.
2003 CLD 653 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN (N.B.P.) Vs. PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD
—-S. 9(1)(2)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I, R.10–Bankers’Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), Preamble–Filing of suit in Banking Court by insurance companyLocus standi—Striking off unnecessary party—Joint suit was filed by certain banking companies in Banking Court–State Life Insurance Corporation was also one of the plaintiffs alongwith the banking companies—Claim made in the plaint was settled among some of the plaintiffs and defendants and the suit so filed was dismissed as not pressed to the extent of such parties—Grievance of the defendants was that the State Life Insurance Corporation had no locus standi to file the suit before Banking Court as it was not a banking company as defined under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001–Validity—No suit could be instituted through a plaint under S.9(1) & (2) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, without the support of a statement of account which was not duly certified under the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891—As books of Insurance Corporation were not the books of Bank used in its ordinary business, therefore, the insurance company could not claim similar sanctity for its statement of account, as had been allowed to that of a Bank under the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891—Insurance company could not institute a suit under S.9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, in absence of statutory authority to certify entries in its books under the Bankers’Books Evidence Act, 1891—Held, State Life Insurance Corporation had no locus standi to institute the suit under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001—Name of the insurance company and its claim were deleted and struck off the plaint under O.I, R.10, C.P.C. accordingly.
2000 PLD 296 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL LEASING LTD Vs. REGENT DYEING AND FINISHING MILLS (PVT) LTD
Bankers Books Evidences Act 1891 —-S. 11—Suit for recovery of Bank loan—Leave to defend the suit–Guarantor was employee of the company and stood as guarantor but subsequently he was substituted by another guarantor who was Director of the Company- Such fact was, prima facie, supported by memorandum of amendment signed by the debtors as also by the new guarantor—Guarantor (defendant No.2) in circumstances, had disclosed a triable issue—Leave to appear and defend the suit was granted in circumstances.