BEFORE THE BANKING COURT-V, LAHORE

Replication to

PLA No. _________/2022

In

Suit No. 186/2022

In Re:
Al Baraka Bank (Pakistan) Limited

Versus

Muhammad Omer Ikram

_______________________

REPLY TO APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT FOR

LEAVE TO APPEAR AND DEFEND THE SUIT UNDER SECTION 10 OF
THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS (RECOVERY OF FINANCES)
ORDINANCE, 2001.
_______________________

Respectfully Sheweth:

PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS:

A. It is submitted that the leave by this learned court under assertions and prayer
of the under reply application may not be granted as no leave has been
sought by the applicant in the under reply application. Clearly the applicant
has acknowledged the fact that he has no case made out under the PLA,
therefore, he has not sought any leave from this learned court. Under the
circumstances this learned court may be pleased to pass a judgment and
decree in favour of the Bank in terms of the prayer made out in the plaint.
B. It is pertinent to call kind attention of this learned court to various
paragraphs. Apart from clear and unambiguous admission of the applicant
regarding availment of musharika finance facility to the extent of Rs.
2,683,954.00 from the plaintiff bank, the applicant has been badly failed to
establish his assertion with respect to his claim of repayment of a sum
corresponding to the availment of the facility. However, the applicant at his
own unconditionally admits his default in payment of monthly installments
on their due dates of repayment in favour of the plaintiff bank but the
applicant has been failed to establish that how and when he has already made
certain payments and why this sum is yet to be payable, particularly neither
 the dictum of law as provided under section 10 has been adhered nor any
counter statement of account has been brought on the record. In light of
foregoing, and clear admission of debts, the suit is liable to be decreed in
terms of Ordinance 2001 as well as Order 12 CPC. In addition, the applicant
has not raised any substantial question of law or fact which may require any
evidence hence, this learned court may be pleased to pass a judgment and
decree in favour of the plaintiff bank.

LEGAL OBJECTIONS:

a. That the under reply PLA allegedly has been filed by the

Applicant/Defendant but the applicant has not filed his respective affidavit.

As for as the affidavit attached is concerned, it is also not sustainable in the

eye of law therefore, the under reply PLA is not an application as required by

the section 10 of the Ordinance 2001, hence, it will be deemed that the

Defendant has not filed any application for leave to defend the suit and

averments made in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and this learned

Court may be pleased to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff bank on the

basis thereof.

b. That the Applicant/Defendant has expressly admitted his liability and

availment of finance facility along with execution of legal documents and

now through fake and frivolous assertions cannot avoid his contractual as

well as legal obligations in favour of the plaintiff bank. The application under

reply is liable to be dismissed.

c. That the application under reply does not fulfill the mandatory requirements

as stipulated under Section 10 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of

Finances) Ordinance 2001, hence the application under reply deserves

immediate dismissal without any further consideration by this learned Court.

d. That the Defendant is legally under obligation to produce certified copies of

his own accounts in the event of any disagreement or rebuttal of any financial

claim of any financial institution. However, in the present case the Defendant
 has simply put forth an unsubstantiated defense on the basis of bald

assertions without annexing or relying upon his own book of account or any

other document duly audited or verified by a competent person or a

regulatory authority. The application under reply is no-where near an

application in the eye of law, hence is liable to be dismissed.

e. That the application under reply, filed by the defendant, does not disclose

any bonafide or material dispute and fails to raise any substantial question of

law and fact which may require leading of evidence, hence, the application is

liable to be dismissed and suit of the plaintiff bank may very kindly be

decreed.

f. That even otherwise the application under reply is time barred hence is liable

to be dismissed.

g. That the defendant in the application under reply has admitted availment and

utilization of finance facility and execution of legal as well as security

documents, hence the application is liable to be dismissed.

h. That the contents of the application under reply are self-contradictory,

therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

i. That admittedly the defendant has executed various banking as well as

financing documents along with documents which fall within the definition

of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, and now has raised a fake and frivolous

defense without support of any material documents. The application under

reply is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.

REPLY TO PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS:

1. That the contents of under reply paragraph need no reply.
2. That the contents of under reply paragraph are false hence vehemently denied
as incorrect. The PLA is hopelessly time barred from date of order of this
Learned Court to file PLA by the Defendant, therefore, this learned Court may
be pleased to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff bank on the basis thereof.
3. That the contents of this ground are vehemently denied. The defendant has

failed to get a plausible defence based on facts and law and the application for

leave to appear and defend the suit filed by the Defendant merits dismissal.

REPLY TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:

1. That the contents of under reply paragraph are false hence vehemently denied
as incorrect. The Applicant/Defendant has just taken a bald assertion in order
to avoid his obligation without any basis in law. Contents of the preliminary
submissions and legal objections are re-iterated herein.
2. That the contents of under reply paragraph are false hence vehemently denied
as incorrect. Contents of the preliminary submissions, legal objections and
above paragraph No. 1 are re-iterated herein.
3. That the contents of under reply paragraph are false hence vehemently denied
as incorrect. Contents of the preliminary submissions, legal objections and
above paragraph No. 1 are re-iterated herein.
4. That the contents of under reply paragraph are false hence vehemently denied
as incorrect. Contents of the preliminary submissions, legal objections and
above paragraph No. 1 are re-iterated herein.
5. That the contents of this ground are vehemently denied. The defendant has
failed to get a plausible defence based on facts and law and the application for
leave to appear and defend the suit filed by the Defendant merits dismissal.
REPLY TO GROUNDS:

A. That the contents of this para are vehemently denied. All requirements of
Section 9(1), (2) & (3) of the Ordinance 2001 have been fulfilled and suit
has been filed by duly authorized attorneys. Further certified statement of
account in accordance with the Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891 (the
“Act of 1891”), to which presumption of truth is attached and as required
under section 9 of the Ordinance 2001 is attached with the plaint which
depicts complete picture of amount of finance availed, amount of finance
paid, date of payments and balance amount and is ample evidence in
respect of willful default of the applicant.
B. That the contents of under reply paragraph are false hence vehemently
denied as incorrect. The Applicant/Defendant has admittedly availed,
enjoyed and utilized the Finance Facility, however, despite admitted use
of Facility, the Applicant/Defendant has failed to adjust outstanding
 amounts qua the Finance Facility in time and at present a total sum of Rs.
3,184,849.00 is outstanding against the Applicant/Defendant in favour of
the Plaintiff Bank. Since the Applicant/Defendant neither adhered to the
Agreements and commitments in favour of the Plaintiff Bank nor has
repaid the outstanding amounts in connection with the repayment
schedule, hence has failed to perform his contractual legal and financial
obligations in terms of the Ordinance 2001. In this regards the complete
picture exhibiting delay and default is provided in the attached repayment
schedule and statement of account, which may kindly be treated as a part/
parcel of this paragraph. The contents of preliminary submissions, legal
objections and above paragraph are re-iterated herein.
C. That the contents of this para are vehemently denied. The suit has been
rightly instituted through duly authorized officers who are also legally
competent and well conversant with the facts of the case as mentioned in
Section 9 of the Ordinance, 2001. Contents of Para No. 2 of the plaint are
reiterated here.
D. That the contents of under reply paragraph are false hence vehemently
denied as incorrect. The contents of preliminary submissions, legal
objections and above paragraph No. A are re-iterated herein.
E. That the contents of this para are vehemently denied. All requirements of
Section 9 of the Ordinance 2001 have been fulfilled. Further certified
statement of account in accordance with the Bankers Books Evidence
Act, 1891, to which presumption of truth is attached and as required
under section 9 of the Ordinance 2001 is attached with the plaint which
depicts complete picture of amount of finance availed, amount of finance
paid, date of payments and balance amount and is ample evidence in
respect of willful default of the applicant. The contents of preliminary
submissions, legal objections and above paragraph No. A are re-iterated
herein.
F. That the contents of this paragraph are vehemently denied. All
requirements of Section 9(2) of the Ordinance 2001 have been fulfilled
and certified copies of the documents have been attached with the Plaint.
Further certified statement of account in accordance with the Bankers
Books Evidence Act, 1891 (the “Act of 1891”), to which presumption of
truth is attached and as required under section 9 of the Ordinance 2001 is
attached with the plaint which depicts complete picture of amount of
finance availed, amount of finance paid, date of payments and balance
 amount and is ample evidence in respect of willful default of the
applicant. The contents of preliminary submissions and legal objections
are re-iterated herein.
G. That the contents of under reply paragraph are false hence vehemently
denied as incorrect. The defendant availed finance facility and execute
various legal documents as mention in paragraph No. 5 and 6 of the
plaint, therefore, defendant is liable to pay markup as per statement of
account attached with the plaint. The contents of preliminary
submissions, legal objections and above paragraph are re-iterated herein.
H. That the contents of under reply paragraph are false hence vehemently
denied as incorrect. The contents of preliminary submissions, legal
objections and above paragraphs are re-iterated herein.
I. That the contents of under reply paragraph are false hence vehemently
denied as incorrect. The contents of preliminary submissions, legal
objections and above paragraphs are re-iterated herein.
J. That the contents of under reply paragraph are false hence vehemently
denied as incorrect. The contents of preliminary submissions, legal
objections and above paragraphs are re-iterated herein.
K. That the contents of under reply paragraph are false hence vehemently
denied as incorrect. The applicant/defendant has availed finance facility
and executed agreements regarding markup, therefore, he is liable to pay
markup. Contents of paragraph No.10 of the plaint are re-iterated herein.

L. That the contents of under reply paragraph are false hence vehemently

denied as incorrect. The contents of preliminary submissions, legal

objections and above paragraphs are re-iterated herein.

M. That the contents of under reply paragraph are false hence vehemently
denied as incorrect. The Applicant/Defendant has expressly admitted his
liability and availment of finance facility along with execution of legal
documents and now through fake and frivolous assertions cannot avoid
his contractual as well as legal obligation in favour of the Plaintiff Bank.
Mere allegations of contradictions/misstatements without any details and
particulars thereof cannot be made the basis. Order VI, Rule 4 clearly
states that in all cases in which the party pleading relies on any
misrepresentation or fraud, particulars of the same have to be stated
(1988 SCMR 1703; 2003 CLD 1331; PLJ 1977 SC 299). The contents of
 preliminary submissions, legal objections and above paragraphs are re-
iterated herein.
N. That the contents of under reply paragraph are false hence vehemently
denied as incorrect. The contents of preliminary humble submissions,
preliminary objections and above paragraph No. B are re-iterated herein.
O. That the contents of under reply paragraph are false hence vehemently
denied as incorrect. Certified statement of account in accordance with the
Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891 (the “Act of 1891”), to which
presumption of truth is attached and as required under section 9 of the
Ordinance 2001 is attached with the plaint which depicts complete picture
of amount of finance availed, amount of finance paid, date of payments
and balance amount and is ample evidence in respect of willful default of
the applicant. The contents of preliminary submissions and legal
objections are re-iterated herein.. The contents of preliminary
submissions, legal objections and above paragraphs are re-iterated herein.

REPLY ON MERITS:

1. That the contents of this para need no reply.

2. That the contents of this para are vehemently denied. The suit has been

rightly instituted through duly authorized officers who are also legally

competent and well conversant with the facts of the case.

3. That the contents of this para are vehemently denied. Contents of the same

para of the plaint are reiterated here.

4. That the contents of this para are vehemently denied. Contents of the same

para of the plaint are reiterated here.

5. That the contents of this para are vehemently denied. Contents of the same

para of the plaint are reiterated here. Application for finance is duly signed

by the Defendant.

6. That the contents of this para are vehemently denied. Contents of the same

para of the plaint are reiterated here. Facility offer letter is duly signed by the

Defendant.
 7. That the contents of this para are vehemently denied. Contents of the same

para of the plaint are reiterated here.

8. That the contents of this para are vehemently denied. Contents of the same

para of the plaint are reiterated here.

9. That the contents of this para are vehemently denied. Contents of the same

para of the plaint are reiterated here.

10. That the contents of this para are vehemently denied. Contents of the same

para of the plaint are reiterated here.

11. That the contents of this para are vehemently denied. It is further submitted

that the attached statement of account wherein entries are duly representing

the provisioning of finance and the same amounts on the same date have

been credited in the current account of the defendant from where the

defendant has obtained and withdrawn the Facility.

12. That the contents of this para are vehemently denied. Contents of the same

para of the plaint are reiterated here.

13. That the contents of this para are vehemently denied. Contents of the same

para of the plaint are reiterated here.

14. That the contents of this para are vehemently denied. Contents of the same

para of the plaint are reiterated here.

15. That the contents of this para are vehemently denied. Contents of the same

para of the plaint are reiterated here.

PRAYER:

In light of the foregoing it is most respectfully prayed that the leave

application has failed to raise any bonafide dispute, or substantial question of law

and fact which may require recording of evidence, hence, under the circumstances

this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the application filed by the defendant

and the suit of the plaintiff bank may kindly be decreed as prayed for in the plaint.
 Plaintiff/Al Baraka Bank (Pakistan) Limited

Through

MIAN IMRAN MUSHTAQ

Advocate High Court

Imdad Hussain Khokhar Mohsin Tariq Sahi

Advocate High Court Advocate High Court

IMRAN MUSHTAQ & CO.

Advocates & Corporate Counsellors
78-B Mozang Road,
Opposite British Council, Lahore.
Ph: +92-42-36298184-85, Fax: +92-42-36298186
Cell: 0321-8409720, 0301-4109610
 BEFORE THE BANKING COURT-V, LAHORE

Replication to

PLA No. _________/2022

In

Suit No. 186/2022

In Re:

Al Baraka Bank (Pakistan) Limited

Versus

Muhammad Omer Ikram

_______________________
REPLY TO APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT FOR
LEAVE TO APPEAR AND DEFEND THE SUIT UNDER SECTION 10 OF
THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS (RECOVERY OF FINANCES)
ORDINANCE, 2001.
_______________________

Affidavit of Mr. Muhammad Mubashir son of Muhammad Ali Asif

authorized attorney of Al Baraka Bank (Pakistan) Limited a
Banking Company incorporated under the laws of Pakistan
having its registered office at Plot No. 162, Bangalor Town,
Main Shahrah-e-Faisal, Karachi and a Branch amongst others
at 316-Z, Block CCA, Phase III, DHA, Lahore.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare on Oath as
under:-

That the contents of the accompanying reply to the leave to defend application are
true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief and nothing has been
concealed therefrom.

Deponent
VERIFICATION:
Verified on oath at Lahore on this 19 th day of January, 2023 that the contents of the
above affidavit are true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief.

Deponent
 BEFORE THE BANKING COURT-V, LAHORE

Replication to

PLA No. _________/2022

In

Suit No. 186/2022

In Re:

Al Baraka Bank (Pakistan) Limited

Versus

Muhammad Omer Ikram

_______________________
REPLY TO APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT FOR
LEAVE TO APPEAR AND DEFEND THE SUIT UNDER SECTION 10 OF
THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS (RECOVERY OF FINANCES)
ORDINANCE, 2001.
_______________________

Affidavit of Mr. Ishraq Khan Niazi son of Ahmad Khan Niazi authorized
attorney of Al Baraka Bank (Pakistan) Limited a Banking
Company incorporated under the laws of Pakistan having its
registered office at Plot No. 162, Bangalor Town, Main
Shahrah-e-Faisal, Karachi and a Branch amongst others at
316-Z, Block CCA, Phase III, DHA, Lahore.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare on Oath as
under:-

That the contents of the accompanying reply to the leave to defend application are
true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief and nothing has been
concealed therefrom.

Deponent
VERIFICATION:
Verified on oath at Lahore on this 19 th day of January, 2023 that the contents of the
above affidavit are true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief.

Deponent