ABL Diamond Polymer

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
(Banking Jurisdiction)
C.M. No.______/2009.
In
COS. No.24/2005
titled
Allied Bank Limited V/s M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) limited & others.
Application by the Plaintiff under Sections 7 & 10 of the Financial Institutions
(Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (Ordinance of 2001) and Section 151 CPC
read with all other enabling provisions of law for disposal of applications for leave to
defend the suit filed by the Defendants and passing of decree.
Respectfully Sheweth:1.
That the titled suit having been filed for recovery of Rs. 101,391,028.14 as
outstanding on 30-06-2005 is pending adjudication before this Honourable Court
since 01-10-2005. Titled suit has been filed by the Plaintiff for recovery of the
above amount through sale of mortgaged/charged properties, hypothecated and
pledged stocks as well as enforcement of personal/corporate guarantees by the
Defendants
2.
That on receipt of notices of the titled suit, Defendants filed separate applications
for leave to defend the titled suit (PLAs) as per details below. Plaintiff also filed
replies of the said PLAs:
3.
I.
PLA No.42-B/2005 by the Defendant No.1,
II.
PLA No.43-B/2005 by the Defendants No.2 to 4,
III.
PLA No.44-B/2005 by the Defendant No.5, and
IV.
PLA No.45-B/2005 by the Defendants No.6 to 9.
That Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 as well as the Defendant Nos. 6 to 9 have been sued in
capacity of guarantors as they stood as guarantors by executing personal
guarantees and repayment/ corporate guarantees respectively in favour of the
Plaintiff Bank in consideration of the financial facilities extended to and availed

by Defendant No.1 from the Plaintiff Bank. Similarly, the Defendant No.5 also
mortgaged his property/assets with the Plaintiff as security for the facilities that
are subject matter of the titled suit. Therefore, the Defendant No. 5 has also been
sued in capacity of mortgagor having mortgaged its properties as security for the
facilities that are subject matter of the titled suit. Therefore, the Defendants Nos. 2
to 9 are also liable for the suit amount and as prayed for in the Plaint a decree is
also liable to be passed against them through sale of their properties whether
mortgaged or not.
4.
That on the basis of admissions made by the Defendant No.1, through the
judgment dated 27-11-2006, this Honourable Court was pleased to pass an interim
Decree in favour of the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 for Rs.50,199,692.69. It
is further submitted that while passing the aforesaid interim Decree dated 27-112006, this Honourable Court was also pleased to fix 06-12-2006 for further
arguments on PLAs. It is submitted that for one reason or the other it has not
proved possible to conclude arguments on the aforesaid PLAs even after the lapse
of twenty eight months. Over this period of twenty eight months the Plaintiff
Bank has made every effort possible to enable adjudication of the aforesaid PLAs
but adjournments sought on behalf of the Defendants have frustrated this effort.
5.
That over the past twenty eight months after passing of the interim Decree dated
27-11-2006, no payment whatsoever has been made to the Plaintiff/Applicant
Bank despite the fact that a large undeniable liability of the Defendants qua the
Plaintiff Bank exists. This liability will survive in large measure even if all
contentions made in the aforesaid PLAs were to be accepted, of which there is
little possibility.
6.
That for execution of the aforesaid interim Decree dated 26-11-2006, Plaintiff, on
06-02-2007, also instituted an execution petition being Execution Petition No.4B/2007 but the interim Decree dated 26-11-2006 could not be executed and no
amount there under could be recovered by the Plaintiff due to successive
objections and delaying tactics adopted by the Defendants. It is submitted that
through the Objection Petition No.7-B/2008 filed in the aforesaid execution
petition, the Defendant No.1 has raised objections to the execution of the interim
Decree dated 26-11-2006, inter alia, on the grounds that till disposal of the
aforesaid PLAs, the properties of the Defendant No.1 could not be sold as it
would tantamount to sale of the properties without judicially deciding the case. It
is submitted that the above assertion by the Defendants is totally against the law
as under section 11(2) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances)

Ordinance of 2001 (the Ordinance), an interim decree, for all purposes
including appeal and execution, is a decree under the Ordinance. Therefore, the
aforesaid interim Decree dated 26-11-2006 can be executed without final disposal
of the aforesaid PLAs.
7.
That it is submitted, however, that the titled suit has been filed for recovery of
Rs.101,391,028.14 but as stated in para 4 above, the aforesaid interim Decree
dated 26-11-2006 was passed only for the sum of Rs.50,199,692.69 admitted by
the Defendant No.1 to be its outstanding liability. Therefore, as the huge amount
of the Plaintiff is struck up, it will be in the interest of justice and equity if the
aforesaid PLAs mentioned in para 2 above are dismissed and the titled suit is
decreed for the full suit amount of Rs.101,391,028.14 against all defendants as
prayed for in the Plaint.
In view of the above facts, it is respectfully prayed that the aforesaid PLA No.42-
B/2005 by the Defendant No.1, PLA No.43-B/2005 by the Defendants No.2 to 4, PLA
No.44-B/2005 by the Defendant No.5 and PLA No.45-B/2005 by the Defendants No.6 to
9 may kindly be rejected and the suit of the Plaintiff Bank may kindly be decreed against
all the Defendants.
Any other order deemed fit and proper may also kindly be passed by this
Honourable Court.
Plaintiff/Applicant (ABL)
through
RAJA MOHAMMED AKRAM

Senior Advocate Supreme Court.
SALMAN AKRAM RAJA

M.A.(CANTAB.) LL.M (London)
LL.M (Harvard)
Advocate Supreme Court.
33-C, Main Gulberg, Lahore.
I, the above-named Deponent do hereby solemnly swear and give evidence on oath, on
behalf of the Plaintiff, as under:
1.
That 1 am an officer of the Plaintiff and at the time of filing the titled suit was
posted as Relationship Manager, Assets Management Branch, of the Plaintiff
situated at ABL199, Upper Mall, Lahore. Presently I am posted as Wing Head,
Special Vigilance Cell ABL, 6th floor Salar Centre, Barkat Market Garden Town
Lahore. Being Relationship Manager of the Plaintiffs aforesaid Assets
Management Branch, I was dealing the case of the Defendant No.1.
Therefore, I am conversant with the facts of the case.

2.
Titled suit on behalf of the Plaintiff has been filed by the Deponent along
with Mr. Anjum Pervaiz who is Vice President and also Manager/Assistant
General Manager of the Plaintiff Bank of its aforesaid branch (Copy of the
Letter dated 24-09-2003 is Exb-PW/1). I along with the aforesaid officer
have signed the Plaint and other documents having been duly authorized by
the Plaintiff Bank to institute the suit, verify plaint and appoint advocates
etc. and to do all acts necessary and incidental for prosecution of the case
on behalf of the Plaintiff Bank. Copy of the Power of Attorney granted by
the Plaintiff to me is attached with the Plaint (Exb-PW/2). Copy of the
Resolutions dated 12-06-1976 and 8-1-1979 passed by the Board of
Directors of the Plaintiff attached with the reply to the Written Statement
are produced as Exb- PW/3 & Exb- PW/3A. I am conversant with the facts of
the case. Mr. Anjum Pervaiz and the Deponent being authorized
representatives of the Plaintiff have validly instituted the titled suit on
behalf of the Plaintiff. Similarly, Suit has been instituted in accordance with
the provisions of section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of
Finances) Ordinance, 2001(Ordinance of 2001).
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 101,391,028.14 AS OUTSTANDING ON 30-062005 THROUGH SALE OF MORTGAGED/CHARGED PROPERTIES,
HYPOTHECATED AND PLEDGED STOCKS AS WELL AS ENFORCEMENT
OF PERSONAL/CORPORATE GUARANTEES.
That the Plaintiff is a banking company, incorporated under the Companies

Ordinance, 1984 having its registered office at 8-Egerton Road/Kashmir Road,
Lahore and a branch amongst others known as Shahdra Branch situated at Main
G.T. Road, Shahdara, Lahore. The Plaintiff is a financial institution for the
purposes of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance of 2001
(the Ordinance) and, therefore, competent to institute this suit before this
Honourable Court.
2.
That the titled suit has been filed through Mr. Raza Saleem Khan, Chief
Manager/Manager Branch and Mr. Muhammad Anwar Malik an officer of the
Plaintiffs Branch situated at Main G.T. Road, Shahdara, Lahore. The said officers
have been/are duly authorized by the Plaintiff Bank to institute the suit, verify
plaint and appoint advocates etc. and to do all acts necessary and incidental for
prosecution of the case on behalf of the Plaintiff Bank. The said officers are also
conversant with the facts of the titled case. (Copies of the Power of Attorney are
attached as Annex-A and A/I). The aforesaid Chief Manager/Branch Manger Mr.
Raza Saleem Khan is also authorized to institute the titled suit and to sign and
verify the plaint on behalf of the Plaintiff under Section 9(I) of the Ordinance of
2001 (Annex-A/2).
3.
That Defendant No.1 is a private limited company incorporated under the

Companies Ordinance, 1984 with its Head Office at Malik Bagh, Baradari Road,
Shahdara, Lahore and Registered Office / Factory at Plot No. 12-A, New
Industrial Area, Mirpur A.J.K.
4.
That Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 as well as the Defendant Nos. 6 to 9 stood as

guarantors by executing personal guarantees and repayment/ corporate guarantees
respectively in favour of the Plaintiff Bank in consideration of the financial
facilities extended to and availed by Defendant No. 1 from the Plaintiff Bank.
Defendant No.1 also mortgaged, charged and pledged its fixed assets and stocks
respectively with the Plaintiff as security for the facilities subject matter of the
titled suit. Similarly, Defendant No. 5 also mortgaged its property/assets with the
Plaintiff as security for the facilities subject matter of the titled suit
5.
That all the addresses of the parties have been correctly given in the heading of
the plaint which are sufficient for the purposes of the processes that may be issued
by this learned Court.
6.
That as on 30-06-2005 the Defendants owe and are liable to pay to the Plaintiff
Bank a sum of Rs. 101,391,028.14 against the financial facilities availed by
Defendant No.1 from the Plaintiff as per details given below:
S.N
i)
Type of Finance
Running Finance of Rs.50.0 M
Outstanding Amount
a)Principal
Rs. 49,985,052.69
b)Markup
ii)
iiii)
7.
Rs. 17,634,018.87
Total:- Rs.67,619,071.56
Cash Finance of Rs.30.0 M
a) Principal
Rs. 9,393,175.00
b)Markup
Rs. 20,360,256.48
Total:- Rs. 29,753,431.48
FADB
a)Principal
Rs. 3,371,748.00
b) Markup
Rs
646,777.10
Total: Rs. 4,018,525.10
Grand Total
Rs.101,391,028.14
That the Defendant No.1 had opened on 29-05-1996 and maintained an account
with the Plaintiffs Main Branch at Main G.T. Road, Shahdara, Lahore bearing
Current Account No.1881 and titled M/s Diamond Polymers
(Pvt.) Limited.
Copies of the Resolution dated 22-05-1996 passed by the Board of Directors of

Defendant No.1 for opening the above account, account opening form dated
29.05.1996 and Certificate of Incorporation of the Defendant No.1 issued by the
Deputy Registrar of the Companies, Mirpur (A.J.K) on 21-05-1996 are attached
as Annex-B, B/1 & C respectively.
8.
That subsequently Defendant No.1 requested the Plaintiff Bank to provide to it

working capital financial facilities required for its project situated at Plot No.12A, New Industrial Area, Mirpur (A.J.K).
The request of Defendant No.1 was accepted and the Plaintiff Bank provided to
Defendant No.1 from time to time various financial facilities such as Running
Finance, Cash Finance and L/C limits etc. The Plaintiffs on yearly basis
continuously renewed these facilities. In the year 2001 Plaintiff on the request of
Defendant No.1 again granted to the Defendant No.1 inter alia the Running
Finance facility of Rs.50.000 Million, Cash Finance facility of Rs.100 Million and
L/C (sight/DA) limit of Rs.150.000 Million etc. A copy of the Sanction Advice
dated 9-4-2001 by the Plaintiff is attached as Annex-D. Maturity dates of the
above facilities were 31-03-2002.
9.
That as evidence of and by way of security for the Running Finance of Rs.50.00
Million, Cash Finance Facility of Rs.100 million and L/C (sight DA) of
Rs.150.000 Million renewed and approved by the aforesaid Sanction Advice dated
9-4-2001, Defendant No.1 in addition to charges/mortgages specified in para 10
below of this plaint executed/furnished the following documents:
A.
Running Finance of Rs.50.0 Million.

a)
Agreement for Financing dated 10-04-2001 (Annex-E). Under the terms

of the Agreement, the Purchase Price of Rs. 64.178(M) was payable by the
Defendant No.1 to the Plaintiff in lump sum on 31-03-2002.
b)
Promissory Note dated 10-04-2001 for Rs.50.000 million plus Mark-up

(Annex-E/1).
c)
B.
Letter of Hypothecation dated 10-04-2001 (Annex- E/2).
Cash Finance of Rs.100.0 Million.

a) Agreement for Financing dated 10-04-2001 (Annex-F). Under the terms of
the Agreement, the Purchase Price of Rs.128.356 million was payable by the
b) Promissory Note dated 10-04-2001 for Rs.100 (M) plus Mark-up (AnnexF/1).
c) Letter of Pledge dated 10-04-2001 (Annex-F/2). Pledged stocks are lying at
the two premises situated at Bara Dari Road, Shahdrah and Molanwal 23 K.M
Main Multan Road and are detailed in the two Stocks Reports attached as
Annex- F/3 & Annex- F/4.
C.
L/C(sight/ DA) of Rs.150 Million.

a) Agreement for Financing dated 10-04-2001 (Annex-G). Under the terms of
Defendant No.1 to the Plaintiff or maturity of each import bill or in lump sum
on 31-03-2002.
b) Promissory Note dated 10-04-2001 for Rs.150.00 million plus M-up dated
(Annex-G/1).
Under this limit, Plaintiff on the request of the Defendant No. 1 had established
inter alia a Letter of Credit No.2004/001. On receipt by the Plaintiff of the
shipping documents under the above L/C, it delivered the same for clearance of
the consignment through M/s Al-Nawab Traders Karachi as instructed by the
Defendant No.1 vide letter No.DO/DPOL-ABL/04-03/2004 dated 22-042004(Annex-G/2). By the said letter Defendant No.1 also advised the Plaintiff
that after getting released the imported goods the same may be dispatched to its
store at its factory premises at Plot No. 12-A New Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad
Kashmir). Accordingly, the Plaintiff delivered the imported goods at the above
place as per the instruction of the Defendant No.1. Similarly, Defendant No.1 also
accepted Bill of Exchange for US$ 214,130.00 dated 30-03-2004 (Annex-G/3)
and forwarded the same to the Plaintiff under the cover of the Letter
No.DPOL/4/4 dated 22-04-2004 (Annex-G/4). By the above the Letter
No.DPOL/4/4 dated 22-04-2004, Defendant No.1 confirmed and assured the
Plaintiff to make the payment under the aforesaid Bill of Exchange on its due date
of 28-06-2004. However, Defendant No.1 failed to pay the amount due under the
Bill of Exchange of US$ 214,130.00 equivalent to Rs, 9,019,498.00 on the due
date of 30-06-2004. Therefore, the aforesaid outstanding amount was converted
into FADB (Finance Against Dishonored Bills) as per the original approval.
10.
That in addition to the documents mentioned in para-9 above of this plaint, as

security for the above Running Finance, Cash Finance and L/C limit/FADB, the
Defendant Nos.1 & 5 mortgaged and charged their assets with the Plaintiff.
Details of the mortgaged and hypothecated assets and the documents whereby
said mortgages and charges were created are as under:
A A. Mortgages & charges by the Defendant No.1.

i.
Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds (Annex H).
ii.
Letter of Hypothecation dated 26.08.1999 (Annex H/1).
iii.
Form X dated 28.08.1999 (Annex H/2).
iv.
Certificate of Charge Registration dated 01.09.1999 (Annex H/2a).
v.
Deed of Floating Charge dated 24.01.2002 (Annex H/3).
vi.
Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed dated 24.01.2002 (Annex H/4).
vii.
viii.
Form XVI dated 24.01.2002 (Annex H/6).
ix.
Certificate of Charge Registration dated 26.01.2002 (Annex H/7).
x.
General Power of Attorney dated 07-08-2000 (Annex H/8).
By the documents mentioned here-in-above, Defendant No.1 created first floating

charge and mortgage by way of deposit of title deeds/registered mortgage upon
the land measuring 304152.16 Sq.Ft bearing Plot No.12-A situated at New
Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad Kashmir) together with all present and future
constructions, factory, mill, machinery, fixtures and fittings etc. constructed and
installed thereon as well as all current assets, all book debts and its undertakings
both present and future. Copy of the Lease Deed dated 09-06-1996 deposited in
original with the Plaintiff for creation of equitable mortgage is attached as Annex
(H/3).
B.
Mortgage by the Defendant No. 5.

(I). Mortgaged Property:
All that Piece and Parcel of land measuring 6 kanal ( as per
measurement 225 sq ft per marla) in Khasra Nos. 331/237/3, 330/237/3,
333/237/3, 332/237/3, 339/237/3, 340/237/3 Khewat No 176 & Khatooni
Nos. 251, 248, 254/1, 246, 238 and 239 as per Jamabandi for the year
1979-80 situated at Mauza Fatehpuri within Municipal Limits of MCL,
Lahore together with all present and future constructions, fittings,

installations machinery and equipment etc.
(II).
Documents executed and furnished:

(i).
(ii).
(iii).
(iv).
(v).
(vi).
Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed (Annex-I).

Mortgage Deed bearing registration No. 3855 registered with the
Sub-Registrar City, Lahore on 16-05-2002 (Annex-I/1).
General Power of Attorney (Annex I/2).
Naqal Register Haqdaran Zamin evidencing mortgage
in favour of the Plaintiff (Annex I/3).
Letter of Continuity of Mortgage dated 25.04.2003 (Annex I/4).
Following original sale deeds were deposited with the Plaintiff to
create equitable mortgage;
B
a. Sale Deed registered with Sub Registrar, City
20.03.1982 as Document No 3541 (Annex-I/5),
b. Sale Deed registered with Sub Registrar, City
c. Sale Deed registered with Sub Registrar, City
d. Sale Deed registered with Sub Registrar, City
e. Sale Deed registered with Sub Registrar, City
f. Sale Deed registered with Sub Registrar, City
20.03.1982 as Document No 3537 (Annex-I/10).
11.
Lahore on
Lahore on
Lahore on
Lahore on
Lahore on
Lahore on
That the Defendant Nos.2 to 4 and the Defendants No. 6 to 9 also executed
Personal Guarantees (Annex- J to J/2) and the Corporate Guarantee along with
the Letter of Awareness respectively (Annex- J/3 to J/4) in favour of the Plaintiff
Bank in consideration of and as joint security for the Running Finance, Cash
Finance and L/C limit extended to and availed by Defendant No.1 which are
subject matter of this suit.
12.
That on maturity of the aforesaid Running Finance, Cash Finance and L/C limit
mentioned in paras 8 & 9 on 31-03-2002 the Defendants requested the Plaintiff to
renew the same. However, pending formal approval by the Plaintiff to renew the
above-facilities, the same being revolving limits were continued to be availed by
Defendant No.1. Subsequently, the above three facilities were formally renewed
firstly up to 30-06-2003 and then upto 30.06.2004 vide Sanction Advices dated
05-10-2002 and 12.09.2003 respectively. Copies of Resolutions dated 08.03.2002
& 30.05.2003 passed by the Directors of Defendant No. 1 for requesting the
Plaintiff for renewal of limits for the periods upto 30.06.2003 and 30.06.2004
respectively and aforesaid Sanction Advices dated 05.10.2002 & 12.09.2003 are
attached herewith as Annexures K, K /1, K /2 & K /3
However, although the above facilities were renewed and utilized by the
Defendants, they failed to execute the documents for renewal on one pretext or
another such as they started raising objections as to the applicable rate of markup. Copies of letters dated 12-07-2002, 19-11-2002 and 01-02-2003 requesting for
reduction in mark-up and acknowledging their liabilities are attached as AnnexL/1 and L/2 and L/3. Similarly, vide letter dated 08-02-2003 (Annex-L/4)
Defendants undertook to pay Rs.2.5 Million per month in aggregate against the
mark-up for the year 2002 payable by Defendant No.1 on the above two facilities
as well as by the other companies of the Diamond Group of Industries.
Defendants again vide letter dated 20-02-2003 (Annex-L/5) again undertook that
mark up for the years 2002 and 2003 would be adjusted latest by 31-12-2003 and
31-12-2004 respectively by payment of Rs.2.5 Million per month but they failed
to honor their commitments.
13.
That through the letter dated 18-09-2003 (Annex- L/6) Plaintiff forwarded to the
Defendants the aforesaid Sanction Advice dated 12-09-2003 whereby the
aforesaid Running Finance, Cash Finance and L/C limit were renewed upto 3006-2004. By the above letter Plaintiff advised the Defendants to complete
documents and other formalities for the aforesaid renewed facilities. Later on vide
another letter dated 25-09-2003 (Annex- L/7) Defendants were again advised not
only to pay the outstanding markup as on 30-06-2003 amounting to Rs.10.638
Million against the Running Finance and Rs.18.163 Million against the Cash
Finance but also to complete formalities for the renewed facilities. However,
Defendants not only failed to complete the required documents but also vide letter
dated 27-09-2003 (Annex- L/8) refused to accept the aforesaid sanction advice by
wrongly disputing the amount of the aforesaid outstanding markup etc. As the
objections raised in the aforesaid letter dated 27-09-2003 were totally wrong, the
Plaintiff vide its letter dated 16-10-2003 (Annex-L/9) gave comprehensive reply
as well as it was conveyed to the Defendants to corporate and liquidate its
liabilities.
14.
That from the above facts, it is clear that all the possible assistance was given and
granted to the Defendant No.1 by the Plaintiff from time to time as aforesaid by
way of providing Running Finance Facility, Cash Finance Facility and Letter of
Credit Facility as well as their renewal and enhancement. However, Defendant
No.1 as well as other Defendants failed to reciprocate in similar manner and failed
to pay/liquidate all of the aforesaid Running Finance Facility, Cash Finance
Facility and and Letter of Credit Facility/FADB on their due dates of 30-06-2004.
Although as aforesaid the Defendants have been acknowledging their liabilities
from time to time but failed to pay the amounts due under the respective facilities.
Copies of Letters whereby the Defendants acknowledged their liability and

committed to make payments have already been mentioned above and attached
with the plaint.
15.
That every effort was made by the Plaintiff Bank to recover the outstanding
amounts from the Defendants but all such efforts were wasted as Defendants
failed to pay the aforesaid liabilities amounting to Rs. 101,391,028.14 as on 3006-2005. They were liable to pay the aforesaid amount but failed to pay the same
despite several requests from the Plaintiff Bank as aforesaid. Hence, this suit.
Particulars of the facilities subject matter of the suit as per Section 9(3) of
the Ordinance, 2001 are as under:
A. Running Finance of Rs.50.0 Million.
(i)
Principal amount of finance availed

by Defendant No.1.
(ii)
Principal Amount paid by

the Defendant No.1.
(Dates & Amounts of payments
are given in the relevant
Statement of Account).
(iii)
Principal Amount payable (i-ii above)

Statement of Account
is Annex-M.
(iv)
Markup payable upto

30.06.2005
(Statement of Account
is Annex M/1).
Markup paid
are given in the Annex M/1 above).
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
Rs. 3,969,964,743.99
Rs. 3,922,979,691.30
Rs. 49,985,052.69
Rs.22,216,664.87
Rs.4,582,646.00
Balance mark up upto 30-06-05

(iv-v).
Rs. 17,634,018.87
Amount of Finance principal

and markup payable (iii + vi above) .
Rs. 67,619,071.56
It may be noted that the above facility/limit was on revolving basis and the
Defendant No.1 was entitled to make multiple withdrawals while remaining
within the maximum limit of Rs.50.00 Million at one point of time. Accordingly,
Defendant No.1 made total withdrawal of Rs. 3,969,964,743.99 against which
an aggregate sum of Rs. 3,922,979,691.30 was paid leaving the aforesaid

balance principal amount of Rs.49,985,052.69.
B. Cash Finance of Rs.30.0 Million.
(i)

by Defendant No.1.
Rs. 1,231,467,625.00
(ii)

the Defendant No.1.
Statement of Account)
Rs. 1,222,074,450.00
(iii)
Rs.9,393,175.00
Statement of Account is Annex-N.

(iv)
Markup payable upto

30.06.2005
is Annex N/1)
Rs.30,573,399.48
(v)
Markup paid
are given in the Annex N/1 above).
Rs.10,213,143.00
(vi)

(iv-v).
Rs 20,360,256.48
(vii)

and markup payable(iii+vi above).
Rs.29,753,431.48
balance principal amount of Rs.9,393,175.00
C. FADB of Rs,9,019,498.00.
(i)

by Defendant No.1.
Rs.9,019,498.00
(ii)
Principal Amount paid by the

Defendant No.1.
Rs. 5,647,750.00
(iii)

Statement of Account is Annex-O.
Rs.3,371,748.00
16.
(iv)
Markup payable upto

30.06.2005
is Annex O/1)
Rs.741,696.10
(v)
Markup paid
are given in the Annex O/1 above).
Rs.94, 919.00
(vi)

(iv-v).
Rs.
(vii)
Amount of Finance (principal)

Rs.4, 018,525.10
646,777.10
That the cause of the action arose firstly when the Running Finance Facility, Cash
Finance Facility and L/C limit were granted to Defendant No.1, secondly, when
the said facilities were renewed from time to time, thirdly when the FADB was
created against the aforesaid L/C limit and fourthly when the facilities subject
matter of the suit matured on 30-06-2004 but the same were not adjusted/ dues
against the said financial facilities were not paid on their aforesaid maturity date.
Each acknowledgement by the Defendants of their liability has also constituted a
cause of action. The cause of action still continues as the Defendants have failed
to discharge their obligations under various agreements and security
documents/guarantees despite various demands made by the Plaintiff Bank in this
respect.
17.
The cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Honourable
Court. Financial facilities subject matter of the suit were disbursed and were
repayable in Lahore. Defendant Nos.1 & 5 to 9 are also having their Registered/
Head offices at Lahore. Property mortgaged by the Defendant No.5 is also
situated at Lahore, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Honourable
Court. All Defendants also reside and work for gains at Lahore. Therefore, this
Honourable Court can adjudicate upon this suit.
18.
That the titled suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is valued at Rs.
101,391,028.14 and Court Fee of Rs.15, 000/- has been affixed on this plaint.
In view of the above facts and submissions, the Plaintiff most respectfully prays
and submits that a decree may kindly be passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the
Defendants jointly and severally as under:
a)
In the sum of Rs.101, 391,028.14 with all costs, charges and expenses payable
under the financing Agreements/Security Documents along with cost of fund in
terms of Section 3 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance,
2001 from the date of default to the date of payment through enforcement of
mortgages and sale of the mortgaged properties and hypothecated/ pledged
machinery/plant and stocks as well as by enforcement of the Personal Guarantees
and Corporate Guarantee furnished by the Defendant Nos.2 to 4 and 6 to 9
respectively as well as sale of all other properties of Defendant Nos.1 to 9.
b)
To authorize the Plaintiff to take possession and recover the properties and assets
of Defendant Nos.1 & 5 that are mortgaged/hypothecated/pledged or under any
charge of the Plaintiff Bank directly and if need be with the assistance of this
Court.
c)
To
attach
and
appoint
receiver(s)
of
the
properties
those
were
mortgaged/hypothecated/ charged/ pledged by Defendant Nos.1 & 5 with the

Plaintiff Bank and detailed in the paras- 9 & 10 of the plaint.
d)
Any other relief that this Honourable Court deems fit and appropriate in the
circumstances of the Suit.
e)
Costs of the suit may kindly also be granted.
EVIDENCE FINISHED
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

C.M. No. 65-B/2009

In
C.O.S. No. 24/2005

Allied Bank Limited V/s M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) limited.
REPLY BY THE PLAINTIFF TO THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
DEFENDANT NO.1 FOR CLOSURE OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF.
Needs no comments.
2.
It is submitted that the Plaintiff had before the date fixed for recording of its
evidence i.e. 31-1-2009 has filed an application being C.M. No. 55-B/2009 before
this Honourable Court praying for extension in time for filing of affidavits of its
witnesses and recording of their evidence till 28-02-2009 and 07-03-2009
respectively. Above application is still pending and reply thereof has not been
filed by the Defendant No.1. It is further submitted that Plaintiff through an
earlier Application being C.M. No. 425/2008 had, inter alia, prayed to this
Honourable Court for amendments in the issues 1, 2 and 3 by placing the onus to
prove the said issues on the Defendant and striking out issue No.6 framed by this
Honourable Court on 10-12-2008.
This application is still pending but the
Applicant/Defendant No.1 has still not filed reply thereof.

3.
Denied that date of 5-11-2008 for recording of the evidence of the Plaintiff was
fixed with the consent of its counsel. It is further submitted that this Honourable
Court had allowed the Plaintiff on 5-11-2008 to submit the evidence of its witness
through affidavits.
4.
Denied vehemently. Denied that Plaintiff has deliberately abstained from filing
affidavits of its witnesses. Similarly, this Honourable Court has jurisdiction under
Order 17 Rule 1 read with section 148 CPC on sufficient cause being shown at
any stage of the suit to grant time to any party. Through the two applications
mentioned in para 2 above, Plaintiff/Respondent has demonstrated sufficient
cause for seeking extension in time for recording of its evidence. It is further
submitted that the provision of the Order XVII Rule 3 are not mandatory in nature
and this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to extend time for recording evidence
of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the right of the Plaintiff to produce its evidence is not
liable to be closed.
5.
Contents as stated are denied vehemently. Reply of the para 2 and 4 above are
reiterated.
6.
It is clarified that this Honourable Court vide Order dated 5-12-2008 had extended
the time to record the evidence of the Plaintiff. Therefore, it has been erroneously
stated that the Plaintiff had failed to produce its evidence before the learned Local
Commission on 6-12-2008.
7.
It is submitted that the Plaintiff has moved this Honourable Court before 31-12009 for extending the date of recording of evidence etc. Contents of para 2 above
are reiterated.
8.
Denied vehemently. Denied that the Plaintiff has either maliciously or

contemptuously failed to file the affidavits of its witnesses. Denied that the
Plaintiff is not willing to produce its evidence before the learned Commission. As
stated above, Plaintiff has already requested this Honourable Court for reframing
of the issues and extending time for recording of Plaintiffs witnesses. Contents of
para 2 above are reiterated.
9.
Denied vehemently. Contents of paras 2 and 8 above are reiterated. Denied that
Plaintiffs right to produce its evidence is liable to be closed.
In view of the above, it is humbly prayed that the application under reply
may kindly be dismissed.
Any other order deemed fit and appropriate may also be kindly passed
RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF
(ABL)
through
MIRZA MUZAFFAR AHMED

Advocate High Court.

C.M. No. 65-B/2009

In
C.O.S. No. 24/2005

REPLY BY THE PLAINTIFF TO THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
DEFENDANT NO.1 FOR CLOSURE OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF.
AFFIDAVIT OF:
Abdul Shakoor Bhattil, Relationship Manager Sam Branch, ABL,

6 Floor, Salar Centre, near Civic Centre, Barkat Market, New Garden Town, Lahore.
th
I, the above-named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Needs no comments.
It is submitted that the Plaintiff had before the date fixed for recording of its
evidence i.e. 31-1-2009 has filed an application being C.M. No. 55-B/2009 before
this Honourable Court praying for extension in time for filing of affidavits of its
witnesses and recording of their evidence till 28-02-2009 and 07-03-2009
respectively. Above application is still pending and reply thereof has not been
filed by the Defendant No.1. It is further submitted that Plaintiff through an
earlier Application being C.M. No. 425/2008 had, inter alia, prayed to this
Honourable Court for amendments in the issues 1, 2 and 3 by placing the onus to
prove the said issues on the Defendant and striking out issue No.6 framed by this
Honourable Court on 10-12-2008. This application is still pending but the
Applicant/Defendant No.1 has still not filed reply thereof.
Denied that date of 5-11-2008 for recording of the evidence of the Plaintiff was
fixed with the consent of its counsel. It is further submitted that this Honourable
Court had allowed the Plaintiff on 5-11-2008 to submit the evidence of its witness
through affidavits.
Denied vehemently. Denied that Plaintiff has deliberately abstained from filing
affidavits of its witnesses. Similarly, this Honourable Court has jurisdiction under
Order 17 Rule 1 read with section 148 CPC on sufficient cause being shown at
any stage of the suit to grant time to any party. Through the two applications
mentioned in para 2 above, Plaintiff/Respondent has demonstrated sufficient
cause for seeking extension in time for recording of its evidence. It is further
submitted that the provision of the Order XVII Rule 3 are not mandatory in nature
and this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to extend time for recording evidence
of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the right of the Plaintiff to produce its evidence is not
liable to be closed.
Contents as stated are denied vehemently. Reply of the para 2 and 4 above are
reiterated.
It is clarified that this Honourable Court vide Order dated 5-12-2008 had extended
the time to record the evidence of the Plaintiff. Therefore, it has been erroneously
7.
8.
9.
stated that the Plaintiff had failed to produce its evidence before the learned Local
Commission on 6-12-2008.
It is submitted that the Plaintiff has moved this Honourable Court before 31-12009 for extending the date of recording of evidence etc. Contents of para 2 above
are reiterated.
Denied vehemently. Denied that the Plaintiff has either maliciously or
contemptuously failed to file the affidavits of its witnesses. Denied that the
Plaintiff is not willing to produce its evidence before the learned Commission. As
stated above, Plaintiff has already requested this Honourable Court for reframing
of the issues and extending time for recording of Plaintiffs witnesses. Contents of
para 2 above are reiterated.
Denied vehemently. Contents of paras 2 and 8 above are reiterated. Denied that
Plaintiffs right to produce its evidence is liable to be closed.
DEPONENT
Verification:
Verified on oath at ________ on this_______ day of _______ 2009 that the contents of the above affidavit
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that nothing has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT

C.M. No.______ -B/2009

In
C.O.S. No. 24/2005

(Application by the Plaintiff Allied Bank Limited under sections 7 & 13 (4) of the
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance of 2001 (the Ordinance of
2001) read with section 151 of CPC and all others enabling provisions of law for
extending date of filing affidavits and recording of the evidence of the Plaintiff.
That the titled suit is pending adjudication before this Honourable Court.
2.
That vide order dated 10-12-2008, this Honourable Court was pleased to appoint
Mr. Justice (Retd) Karamat Nazir Bhindari as commission to record evidence in
the titled case and fixed his remuneration. The said remuneration has already been
paid.
3.
That the proceedings for recording of the evidence of the Plaintiff are fixed on 3101-2009 before Mr. Justice (Retd) Karamat Nazir Bhindari. Plaintiff is to file
affidavits of its 12 witnesses for examination-in-chief of its witnesses.
4.
That the titled suit was filed in the year 2005 and several main witnesses of
Plaintiff have since retired and left the service of the Plaintiff. The said witnesses
will be available after 15th of February 2009 and their affidavits will be prepared
thereafter. Similarly, old record of the subject matter of the titled suit, the copies
whereof have been attached with the plaint and reply to PLAs is being traced and
compiled which can take a three weeks time. Therefore, it is in the interest of
justice if the dates of filing of affidavits of the witnesses of the Plaintiff and
recording of the evidence already fixed on 31-01-200 before Mr. Justice (Retd)
Karamat Nazir Bhindari are extended as under:
i.
Filing of affidavits of the witnesses of the Plaintiff. 28-02-2009,
ii.
Recording of the evidence of Plaintiffs witnesses. 0 7-03-2009.
In view of the above, it is humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may
be pleased to make an order;
i.
for allowing the Plaintiff file affidavits of its witness till 28-022009,
ii.
for extending the date of recording of the evidence from 31-012009 to 07-03-2009 or any other date in the second week of March
2009.
Any other order deemed fit and appropriate may also be kindly
passed
APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF
(ABL)
through

Advocate High Court

C.M. No.______ -B/2009

In
C.O.S. No. 24/2005

Allied Bank Limited V/s M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) limited
AFFIDAVIT OF:
Abdul Shakoor Bhattil, Relationship Manager Sam Branch, ABL,

6th Floor, Salar Centre, near Civic Centre, Barkat Market, New Garden Town, Lahore.
1.
2.
That vide order dated 10-12-2008, this Honourable Court was pleased to appoint
Mr. Justice (Retd) Karamat Nazir Bhindari as commission to record evidence in
the titled case and fixed his remuneration. The said remuneration has already been
paid.
3.
That the proceedings for recording of the evidence of the Plaintiff are fixed on 3101-2009 before Mr. Justice (Retd) Karamat Nazir Bhindari. Plaintiff is to file
affidavits of its 12 witnesses for examination-in-chief of its witnesses.
4.
will be available after 15th of February 2009 and their affidavits will be prepared
thereafter. Similarly, old record of the subject matter of the titled suit, the copies
whereof have been attached with the plaint and reply to PLAs is being traced and
compiled which can take a three weeks time. Therefore, it is in the interest of
justice if the dates of filing of affidavits of the witnesses of the Plaintiff and
recording of the evidence already fixed on 31-01-200 before Mr. Justice (Retd)
Karamat Nazir Bhindari are extended as under:
i.
Filing of affidavits of the witnesses of the Plaintiff. 28-02-2009,
ii.
Recording of the evidence of Plaintiffs witnesses. 0 7-03-2009.

DEPONENT
Verification:
Verified on oath at ________ on this_______ day of _______ 2009 that the contents of the above affidavit
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that nothing has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT

C.M No.______ B/2008
COS. No.24/2005
titled
2.
That vide order dated 10-12-2008, this Honourable Court was pleased to frame
issues, direct the parties to file list of their respective witnesses. The Honourable
Court also appointed Mr. Justice (Retd) Karamat Nazir Bhindari as commission to
record evidence in the titled case and fixed his remuneration.
3.
That on 05-11-2008, Mr. Justice (Retd) Karamat Nazir Bhindari held the first
meeting and fixed 07-12-2008 for recording of the evidence of the Plaintiff. Mr.
Justice (Retd) Karamat Nazir Bhindari further directed the Plaintiff to obtain
permission of this Honourable Court for recording of the evidence/examinationin-chief of its witnesses through affidavits.
4.
That through the aforesaid Order dated 10-12-2008, this Honourable Court was
pleased to frame, inter alia, the following issues numbers 1, 2, 3 & 6:
1.
Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPP.
2.
Whether the suit is maintainable and has the Plaintiff come into the Court
with clean hands? OPP.
3.
Whether the suit has been instituted and verified in consonance with the
provisions of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance,
2001? OPP.
6.
Whether the Plaintiff Bank was authorized to pay a sum of Rs.260.00

million to the Customs Department? OPD
5.
That the aforesaid issues 1, 2 and 3 were raised by the Defendants through their
pleadings and onus to prove the said issues should have been put on the
Defendants. However, inadvertently onus to prove the aforesaid issues No.1, 2 &
3 has been put on the Plaintiff. Similarly, the matter in issue No.6 is not the
subject matter of the titled suit. It is submitted that the titled suit has not been filed
for recovery of any amount arising out of the sum of Rs.260.00 million paid to the
Customs Department on enforcement of any Guarantee. In fact the aforesaid sum
of Rs.260.00 million paid by the Plaintiff to the Customs Department on
enforcement of the Guarantees was subject matter of C.O.S.No.18/2005 titled
Allied Bank Limited V/s M/s Diamond Industries Limited Etc which was decreed
by this Honourable Court on 12-10-2007 However, inadvertently issue No.6 has
been framed.
6.
That it is in the interest of justice that the aforesaid issues 1, 2 and 3 may be
ordered to be amended and the onus to prove the said issues be put on the
Defendants. Similarly, the aforesaid issue No.6 that has been inadvertently framed
may also be kindly ordered to be struck out.
7.
That as directed by Mr. Justice (Retd) Karamat Nazir Bhindari on 05-11-2008,

permission may be granted to the Plaintiff to record evidence/examination-inchief of its witnesses through affidavits as per section 13(4) of the Ordinance of
2001.
8.
will be available after 15th of December 2008 and their affidavits will be prepared
thereafter. Therefore, it is also in the interest of justice if the date of recording of
the evidence of 07-12-2008 fixed by Mr. Justice (Retd) Karamat Nazir Bhindari is
adjourned till second week of January 2009.
In view of the above, it is humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may
iii.
for putting the onus to prove the issues No.1, 2 & 3 on the
Defendants.,
iv.
for striking out the issue No.6,
v.
for
granting
permission
to
the
Plaintiff
to
record
evidence/examination-in-chief of its witnesses through affidavits

as per section 13(4) of the Ordinance of 2001,
vi.
for extending the date of recording of the evidence from 07-122008 to any other date in the second week of January 2009.
Any other order deemed fit and appropriate may also be kindly
passed
Applicant/Plaintiff
(ABL)
through
SALMAN AKRAM RAJA
Advocate High Court
Advocate High Court

COS. No.24/2005
titled
(CERTIFICATE OF READINESS TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE AND LIST
OF WITNESSES BY THE PLAINTIFF ALLIED BANK LIMITED)
That through the Order dated 10-10-2008, this Honourable Court was pleased to
direct the parties to file list of their respective witnesses.
2.
That the Plaintiff hereby certifies that it is ready and will produce its evidence in
support of its assertions made in its pleadings/Plaint/Replication. Plaintiff will
produce/summon through this Honourable and record evidence of the following
witnesses who will also bring with them and produce before this Honourable
Court necessary record and the documents:
1. Muhammad Saleem Raza (Former Chief Manager, ABL, Shahdra Branch, Lahore
now retired) R/o 104-Main Bazar Shahdra Town Lahore.
2. Muhammad Anwar Malik (Former Officer, ABL, Shahdra Branch, now retired)
R/o Mohallah Muslim Pura, Bara Adda Larian, Sharqpur Sharif, District,
Sheikhupura.
3. Ijaz Bashir Bhatti, Regional Head, CRBG, ABL, Regional office, Gujrat.
4. Mian Asif Mehmood (Manager ABL, Azam Cloth Market, Lahore.
5. Syed Asad Raza Naqvi, Officer Allied Bank Limited Gulshan-e-Ravi Branch
Lahore.
6. Syed Mujtaba Gillani, Wing Head, Special Vigilance Cell ABL, 6 th floor Salar
Centre, Barkat Market Garden Town Lahore.
7. Mian Muhammad Rasheed, Area Manager ABL, SAM Branch, 6 th floor Salar
Centre, Barkat Market Garden Town Lahore.
8. Nawaz Ali Malik Manager ABL, Shahdra Branch, Main G.T. Road, Shahdara,
Lahore.
9. Faseh Siddiqui Manager RC & RR, ABL, Karachi.
10. Shaukat Ali Larik (Retired from ABL now in My Bank, Head Compliance,
Karachi).
11. If, after recording of the evidence of the Defendants, it is felt necessary to record
evidence of further witnesses, the said witnesses shall be produced with the
permission of this Honourable Court.
Plaintiff
(ABL)
through
SALMAN AKRAM RAJA

Advocate High Court M.A.(Cantab)
LL.M(London) LL.M (Harvard).

Advocate High Court
PRECEPT
Under Section 46 CPC.

Execution Petition No.4-B/2007

Upon hearing the Decree Holder it is ordered that this precept be sent to the Honourable
High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir at Muzaffarabad under section 46 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with the direction to attach the property specified in
the annexed schedule and to hold the same pending any application which may be
made by the Decree Holder for execution of the decree.
Schedule.
All that piece and parcel of land measuring 304152.16 Sq.Ft bearing Plot No.12A situated at New Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad Jammu & Kashmir) together
with all constructions, factory, mill, machinery, fixtures and fittings etc
constructed and installed thereon (hereinafter referred to as the Property).
Dated the ____________ day of_______________ 2008.
Judge.

Order sending the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 for execution by the
Honourable High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir at Muzaffarabad.

In
COS. No.24/2005
WHEREAS the Decree Holder in the above suit has applied to this Court for a certificate
to be sent to the Honourable High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir at
Muzaffarabad for execution the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 in the above suit
by the said Court, alleging that the property of the Judgment Debtor is situated in the
local limits of the jurisdiction of the Honourable High Court of the Azad Jammu &
Kashmir at Muzaffarabad, and it is deemed necessary and proper to send a certificate
to the Honorable High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir at Muzaffarabad under
Order XXI, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it is
Ordered:
That a copy of this order be sent to the Honourable High Court of the Azad Jammu &
Kashmir at Muzaffarabad with a copy of the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 and of any
other order which may have been made for execution of the same and a certificate of nonsatisfaction.
Dated the ____________ day of_______________ 2008.
Judge.

Certificate of non-satisfaction of Decree.

Certified that no satisfaction of the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 of this Court in the
suit bearing C.O.S. No.24/2005 titled Allied Bank Limited V/s M/s Diamond Polymers
(Pvt.) Limited, a copy of which is hereto attached has been obtained by execution within
the jurisdiction of this Court.
Dated the ____________ day of_______________ 2008.
Judge.

C.M. No.____/2008.
In
Application under Section 46 read with section 151 CPC for issuance of
precept to the Honourable High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir,
Muzaffarabad.
Respectfully Sheweth:
1.
That the titled Execution Petition is pending adjudication before this Honourable
Court.
2.
That the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 is being executed by this Honourable
Court through sale/auction inter alia of the fixed assets of the Judgment Debtor as
specified in the Lists (Fard Taliqa) appended with the titled Execution Petition
and also given below:
All that piece and parcel of land measuring 304152.16 Sq.Ft bearing Plot
No.12-A situated at New Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad Jammu & Kashmir)
together with all constructions, factory, mill, machinery, fixtures and fittings etc
3.
That as the Property is situated in the Azad Jammu & Kashmir, the Honourable
Court through the order dated 20-06-2008, while allowing the Court Auctioneers
to continue with the auction proceedings of the Property has directed them to
ensure that all codal and procedural formalities are fulfilled in this regard.
4.
That as the Property is situated within the territory of the Azad Jammu &
Kashmir, it is necessary as well as in the interest of justice that a precept to attach
the Property is issued by this Honourable Court to the Honourable High Court of
the Azad Jammu & Kashmir, Muzaffarabad.
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may
be pleased to issue to the Honourable High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir,
Muzaffarabad, a precept to attach the Property.
Decree Holder (ABL)

through
Advocate High Court
SALMAN AKRAM RAJA

M.A.(Cantab) LL.M(London)
LL.M (Harvard).
Advocate
Supreme Court.

C.M. No.____/2008.
In
Muzaffarabad.
AFFIDAVIT OF:
Mian Farooq Kashif S/o, Mian Mohammad Tufail,

Relationship Manager Sam Branch, ABL, 6th Floor, Salar
Centre, near Civic Centre, Barkat Market, New Garden
Town, Lahore.

1.
That the titled Execution Petition is pending adjudication before this Honourable Court.
2.
That the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 is being executed by this Honourable Court
through sale/auction inter alia of the fixed assets of the Judgment Debtor as specified in
the Lists (Fard Taliqa) appended with the titled Execution Petition and also given below:
All that piece and parcel of land measuring 304152.16 Sq.Ft bearing Plot No.12-A
situated at New Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad Jammu & Kashmir) together with all
constructions, factory, mill, machinery, fixtures and fittings etc constructed and installed
thereon (hereinafter referred to as the Property).
3.
That as the Property is situated in the Azad Jammu & Kashmir, the Honourable Court
through the order dated 20-06-2008, while allowing the Court Auctioneers to continue
with the auction proceedings of the Property has directed them to ensure that all codal
and procedural formalities are fulfilled in this regard.
4.
That as the Property is situated within the territory of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir, it is
necessary as well as in the interest of justice that a precept to attach the Property is issued
by this Honourable Court to the Honourable High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir,
Muzaffarabad.
DEPONENT
Verification:
Verified on oath at ________ on this_______ day of _______ 2008 that the contents of
the above affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that nothing has
been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT

C.M. No.____/2008.
In
Application under Section 39, Order 21 rules 5 to 10 read with section 151
CPC for sending to the Honourable High Court of the Azad Jammu &
Kashmir, Muzaffarabad for execution the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006.
1.
Court.
2.
3.
4.
Kashmir, it is necessary as well as in the interest of justice that the Interim Decree
dated 27-11-2006 is sent by this Honourable Court to the Honourable High Court
of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir, Muzaffarabad for execution thereof.
be pleased order to send for execution, to the Honourable High Court of the Azad
Jammu & Kashmir, Muzaffarabad, the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006.
Decree Holder (ABL)

through
Advocate High Court
SALMAN AKRAM RAJA

LL.M (Harvard).
Advocate
Supreme Court.

C.M. No.____/2008.
In
Affidavit of Mian Farooq Kashif S/o, Mian Mohammad Tufail, Relationship
Manager Sam Branch, ABL, 6th Floor, Salar Centre, near Civic Centre, Barkat
Market, New Garden Town, Lahore.
1.
Court.
2.
3.
4.
DEPONENT
Verification:
DEPONENT

C.M. No.____/2008.
In
Application under Sections 7 & 19 of the Financial Institutions

(Recovery of Finances) Ordinance of 2001 read with Section 51, Order
21 Rules 66,67 & 82 and Section 151 CPC for auction of the fixed assets
of the Judgment Detbor.
1.
Court.
2.
No.12-A situated at New Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad Kashmir) together with
all constructions, factory, mill, machinery, fixtures and fittings etc constructed
and installed thereon.
3.
That the Court Auctioneers have already filed, in this Honourable Court, the
Proclamation of Sale through public auction of the aforesaid assets and notice
under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC was issued to the Judgment Debtor. That the
Judgment Debtor had filed objection to the sale of assets and the reply whereof
was filed by the Decree Holder. When the titled Execution Petition was fixed on
06-02-2008, the Counsel for the Judgment Debtor had sought adjournment on the
ground that before arguing the Objection Petition, he would like to see the
contents of the reply thereof and the Honurable Court was pleased to adjourn the
case for 26-02-2008. On 26-02-2008 the case was again adjourned for arguments
for 11-03-2008. However, on 11-03-2008, titled Execution Petition could not be
heard due to the Bomb Explosions in the City.
4.
That the Interim Decree was passed on 27-11-2006 but despite passage of a
considerable period of time, the Decree Holder has been un-successful in
recovering the decretal amount. Under section 19(7) of the Financial Institutions
(Recovery of Finances) Ordinance of 2001, an Objection Petition is to be decided
within 30 days of filing thereof which period has already lapsed.
2.
That after 26-02-2008, the Respondent/Judgment Debtor has started removing and
selling machinery charged with the Decree Holder and installed at the premises
mentioned in para-2 above. If the Respondent/Judgment Debtor is not restrained
from selling machinery and other fixed assets that are mortgaged with the Decree
Holder, not only the Decree Holder will suffer an irreparable loss but also the
process of law and the Decree dated 27-11-2006 would be frustrated.
3.
That it is in the interest of justice that the Objection Petition filed by the
Respondent be dismissed, Respondent be restrained from selling the machinery
and other fixed assets that are mortgaged with the Decree Holder and the Court
Auctioneers be directed to sell the assets specified in para-2 above and in the Lists
(Fard Taliqa) appended with the titled Execution Petition.
vii.
for dismissing the Objection Petition filed by the Respondent,
viii.
for restraining the Respondent from selling machinery and other

fixed assets that are mortgaged with the Decree Holder and
specified in para-2 above, and
ix.
for directing the Court auctioneers to sell through public auction

the assets specified in para-2 above.
Decree Holder (ABL)

through

Advocate High Court
SALMAN AKRAM RAJA

LL.M (Harvard).
Advocate
Supreme Court.

COS. No.24/2005
titled
(CERTIFICATE OF READINESS TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE AND LIST OF

WITNESSES BY THE DEFENDANT ALLIED BANK LIMITED)
That through the Order dated 19-05-2006, this Honourable Court was pleased to
direct the parties to file list of their respective witnesses.
2.
That the Plaintiff hereby certifies that it is ready and will produce its evidence in
support of its assertions made in its pleadings/Plaint/Replication. Defendant will
produce/summon through this Honourable and record evidence of the following
witnesses who will also bring with them and produce before this Honourable
Court necessary record and the documents:
If, after recording of the evidence of the Plaintiffs, it is felt necessary to record evidence
of further witnesses, the said witnesses including some hand writing expert shall
be produced with the permission of this Honourable Court.
Defendant
(HBL)
through

Advocate High Court
PRECEPT
Under Section 46 CPC.


Upon hearing the Decree Holder it is ordered that this precept be sent to the Honourable
High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir at Muzaffarabad under section 46 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with the direction to attach the property specified in
the annexed schedule and to hold the same pending any application which may be
made by the Decree Holder for execution of the decree.
Schedule.
All that piece and parcel of land measuring 304152.16 Sq.Ft bearing Plot No.12A situated at New Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad Jammu & Kashmir) together
Dated the ____________ day of_______________ 2008.
Judge.

Order sending the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 for execution by the
Honourable High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir at Muzaffarabad.

In
COS. No.24/2005
WHEREAS the Decree Holder in the above suit has applied to this Court for a certificate
to be sent to the Honourable High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir at
Muzaffarabad for execution the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 in the above suit
by the said Court, alleging that the property of the Judgment Debtor is situated in the
local limits of the jurisdiction of the Honourable High Court of the Azad Jammu &
Kashmir at Muzaffarabad, and it is deemed necessary and proper to send a certificate
to the Honorable High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir at Muzaffarabad under
Order XXI, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it is
Ordered:
That a copy of this order be sent to the Honourable High Court of the Azad Jammu &
Kashmir at Muzaffarabad with a copy of the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 and of any
other order which may have been made for execution of the same and a certificate of nonsatisfaction.
Dated the ____________ day of_______________ 2008.
Judge.

Certificate of non-satisfaction of Decree.

Certified that no satisfaction of the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 of this Court in the
suit bearing C.O.S. No.24/2005 titled Allied Bank Limited V/s M/s Diamond Polymers
(Pvt.) Limited, a copy of which is hereto attached has been obtained by execution within
the jurisdiction of this Court.
Dated the ____________ day of_______________ 2008.
Judge.

C.M. No.____/2008.
In
Muzaffarabad.
1.
Court.
2.
3.
4.
Kashmir, it is necessary as well as in the interest of justice that a precept to attach
the Property is issued by this Honourable Court to the Honourable High Court of
the Azad Jammu & Kashmir, Muzaffarabad.
be pleased to issue to the Honourable High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir,
Muzaffarabad, a precept to attach the Property.
Decree Holder (ABL)

through
Advocate High Court
SALMAN AKRAM RAJA

LL.M (Harvard).
Advocate
Supreme Court.

C.M. No.____/2008.
In
Muzaffarabad.
AFFIDAVIT OF:
Mian Farooq Kashif S/o, Mian Mohammad Tufail,

Relationship Manager Sam Branch, ABL, 6th Floor, Salar
Centre, near Civic Centre, Barkat Market, New Garden
Town, Lahore.

1.
That the titled Execution Petition is pending adjudication before this Honourable Court.
2.
That the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 is being executed by this Honourable Court
through sale/auction inter alia of the fixed assets of the Judgment Debtor as specified in
the Lists (Fard Taliqa) appended with the titled Execution Petition and also given below:
situated at New Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad Jammu & Kashmir) together with all
constructions, factory, mill, machinery, fixtures and fittings etc constructed and installed
thereon (hereinafter referred to as the Property).
3.
That as the Property is situated in the Azad Jammu & Kashmir, the Honourable Court
through the order dated 20-06-2008, while allowing the Court Auctioneers to continue
with the auction proceedings of the Property has directed them to ensure that all codal
and procedural formalities are fulfilled in this regard.
4.
That as the Property is situated within the territory of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir, it is
necessary as well as in the interest of justice that a precept to attach the Property is issued
by this Honourable Court to the Honourable High Court of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir,
Muzaffarabad.
DEPONENT
Verification:
DEPONENT

C.M. No.____/2008.
In
1.
Court.
2.
3.
4.
be pleased order to send for execution, to the Honourable High Court of the Azad
Jammu & Kashmir, Muzaffarabad, the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006.
Decree Holder (ABL)

through
Advocate High Court
SALMAN AKRAM RAJA

LL.M (Harvard).
Advocate
Supreme Court.

C.M. No.____/2008.
In
Affidavit of Mian Farooq Kashif S/o, Mian Mohammad Tufail, Relationship
Manager Sam Branch, ABL, 6th Floor, Salar Centre, near Civic Centre, Barkat
1.
Court.
2.
3.
4.
DEPONENT
Verification:
DEPONENT

C.M. No.____/2008.
In

(Recovery of Finances) Ordinance of 2001 read with Section 51, Order
1.
Court.
2.
3.
4.
4.
5.
x.
xi.

xii.

Decree Holder (ABL)

through

Advocate High Court
SALMAN AKRAM RAJA

LL.M (Harvard).
Advocate
Supreme Court.

C.O.S No. ___________/2005

Allied Bank Limited [Formerly Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited], a banking
company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and having its
registered office at 8-Egerton Road/Kashmir Road, Lahore and a branch amongst
others known as Shahdra Branch situated at Main G.T. Road, Shahdara, Lahore.
.Plaintiff
VERSUS
1.
M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) limited having its Head office at Malik
Bagh, Baradari Road, Shahdara, Lahore and Registered office/Mill/Factory
at Plot No.12-A, New Industrial Area, Mirpur Azad Jammu Kashmir.
2.
Mr. Waqar Ahmed Shaffi, S/o Mian S. M. Shaffi, R/o 94-D, Model Town,
Lahore.
3.
Mrs. Seema Iftikhar W/o Iftikhar A. Shaffi R/o 93-D, Model Town, Lahore.
4.
Mr. Muhammad Saeed S/o M. Saeed R/o 19-Umar Block, Allama Iqbal
Town, Lahore.
5.
Diamond Rubber Mills - a Firm, through its Partners Waqar A. Shafi,

Seema Iftikhar and Farah Waqar, Malik Bagh Bara Dari Road, Shahdara,
Lahore.
6.
M/s Diamond Industries Limited having its Head/Registered office at Malik

Bagh, Baradari Road, Shahdara, Lahore and Mill/Factory at Plot No.25
Amazai Industrial Estate Topi Ganduf Road, Swabi, NWFP.
7.
M/s Shaffi Chemical Industries Limited a company incorporated under the

Companies Ordinance, 1984 having its Principal Office at Malik Bagh Bara
Dari Road, Shahdara, Lahore and Registered Office / Factory at Plot No. 2,
Industrial Estate, Gadoon Amazai, Swabi NWFP.
8.
M/s Crescent Industrial (Gadoon) Enterprises (Pvt.) Limited having its

Principal office at Malik Bagh, Baradari Road, Shahdara, Lahore and
Registered Office / Factory at Plot No. 32/3, Industrial Estate, Gadoon
Amazai, Swabi NWFP.
9.
M/s Citifoam Industries (Pvt.) Limited a company incorporated under the

Companies Ordinance, 1984 having its Head/Registered Office at Malik
Bagh, Baradari Road, Shahdra, Lahore.
.Defendants
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 101,391,028.14 AS OUTSTANDING ON 30-062005 THROUGH SALE OF MORTGAGED/CHARGED PROPERTIES,
HYPOTHECATED AND PLEDGED STOCKS AS WELL AS ENFORCEMENT
OF PERSONAL/CORPORATE GUARANTEES.
That the Plaintiff is a banking company, incorporated under the Companies

Ordinance, 1984 having its registered office at 8-Egerton Road/Kashmir Road,
Lahore and a branch amongst others known as Shahdra Branch situated at Main
G.T. Road, Shahdara, Lahore. The Plaintiff is a financial institution for the
purposes of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance of 2001
(the Ordinance) and, therefore, competent to institute this suit before this
Honourable Court.
2.
That the titled suit has been filed through Mr. Raza Saleem Khan, Chief
Manager/Manager Branch and Mr. Muhammad Anwar Malik an officer of the
Plaintiffs Branch situated at Main G.T. Road, Shahdara, Lahore. The said officers
have been/are duly authorized by the Plaintiff Bank to institute the suit, verify
plaint and appoint advocates etc. and to do all acts necessary and incidental for
prosecution of the case on behalf of the Plaintiff Bank. The said officers are also
conversant with the facts of the titled case. (Copies of the Power of Attorney are
attached as Annex-A and A/I). The aforesaid Chief Manager/Branch Manger Mr.
Raza Saleem Khan is also authorized to institute the titled suit and to sign and
verify the plaint on behalf of the Plaintiff under Section 9(I) of the Ordinance of
2001 (Annex-A/2).
3.
That Defendant No.1 is a private limited company incorporated under the

Companies Ordinance, 1984 with its Head Office at Malik Bagh, Baradari Road,
Shahdara, Lahore and Registered Office / Factory at Plot No. 12-A, New
Industrial Area, Mirpur A.J.K.
4.
That Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 as well as the Defendant Nos. 6 to 9 stood as

guarantors by executing personal guarantees and repayment/ corporate guarantees
facilities extended to and availed by Defendant No. 1 from the Plaintiff Bank.
Defendant No.1 also mortgaged, charged and pledged its fixed assets and stocks
respectively with the Plaintiff as security for the facilities subject matter of the
titled suit. Similarly, Defendant No. 5 also mortgaged its property/assets with the
Plaintiff as security for the facilities subject matter of the titled suit
5.
That all the addresses of the parties have been correctly given in the heading of
the plaint which are sufficient for the purposes of the processes that may be issued
by this learned Court.
6.
That as on 30-06-2005 the Defendants owe and are liable to pay to the Plaintiff
Bank a sum of Rs. 101,391,028.14 against the financial facilities availed by
Defendant No.1 from the Plaintiff as per details given below:
S.N
i)
ii)
iiii)
8.
Type of Finance
Outstanding Amount
a)Principal
Rs. 49,985,052.69
b)Markup
Rs. 17,634,018.87
Total:- Rs.67,619,071.56
a) Principal
Rs. 9,393,175.00
b)Markup
Rs. 20,360,256.48
Total:- Rs. 29,753,431.48
FADB
a)Principal
Rs. 3,371,748.00
b) Markup
Rs
646,777.10
Total: Rs. 4,018,525.10
Grand Total
Rs.101,391,028.14
That the Defendant No.1 had opened on 29-05-1996 and maintained an account
with the Plaintiffs Main Branch at Main G.T. Road, Shahdara, Lahore bearing
Current Account No.1881 and titled M/s Diamond Polymers
(Pvt.) Limited.
Copies of the Resolution dated 22-05-1996 passed by the Board of Directors of

Defendant No.1 for opening the above account, account opening form dated
29.05.1996 and Certificate of Incorporation of the Defendant No.1 issued by the
Deputy Registrar of the Companies, Mirpur (A.J.K) on 21-05-1996 are attached
as Annex-B, B/1 & C respectively.
8.
That subsequently Defendant No.1 requested the Plaintiff Bank to provide to it

working capital financial facilities required for its project situated at Plot No.12A, New Industrial Area, Mirpur (A.J.K).
The request of Defendant No.1 was accepted and the Plaintiff Bank provided to
Defendant No.1 from time to time various financial facilities such as Running
Finance, Cash Finance and L/C limits etc. The Plaintiffs on yearly basis
continuously renewed these facilities. In the year 2001 Plaintiff on the request of
Defendant No.1 again granted to the Defendant No.1 inter alia the Running
Finance facility of Rs.50.000 Million, Cash Finance facility of Rs.100 Million and
L/C (sight/DA) limit of Rs.150.000 Million etc. A copy of the Sanction Advice
dated 9-4-2001 by the Plaintiff is attached as Annex-D. Maturity dates of the

above facilities were 31-03-2002.
9.
That as evidence of and by way of security for the Running Finance of Rs.50.00
Million, Cash Finance Facility of Rs.100 million and L/C (sight DA) of
Rs.150.000 Million renewed and approved by the aforesaid Sanction Advice dated
9-4-2001, Defendant No.1 in addition to charges/mortgages specified in para 10
below of this plaint executed/furnished the following documents:
A.
Running Finance of Rs.50.0 Million.

a)
Agreement for Financing dated 10-04-2001 (Annex-E). Under the terms

of the Agreement, the Purchase Price of Rs. 64.178(M) was payable by the
b)
Promissory Note dated 10-04-2001 for Rs.50.000 million plus Mark-up

(Annex-E/1).
c)
B.
Letter of Hypothecation dated 10-04-2001 (Annex- E/2).
Cash Finance of Rs.100.0 Million.

d) Agreement for Financing dated 10-04-2001 (Annex-F). Under the terms of
e) Promissory Note dated 10-04-2001 for Rs.100 (M) plus Mark-up (AnnexF/1).
f) Letter of Pledge dated 10-04-2001 (Annex-F/2). Pledged stocks are lying at
the two premises situated at Bara Dari Road, Shahdrah and Molanwal 23 K.M
Main Multan Road and are detailed in the two Stocks Reports attached as
Annex- F/3 & Annex- F/4.
C.
L/C(sight/ DA) of Rs.150 Million.

c) Agreement for Financing dated 10-04-2001 (Annex-G). Under the terms of
Defendant No.1 to the Plaintiff or maturity of each import bill or in lump sum
on 31-03-2002.
d) Promissory Note dated 10-04-2001 for Rs.150.00 million plus M-up dated
(Annex-G/1).
Under this limit, Plaintiff on the request of the Defendant No. 1 had established
inter alia a Letter of Credit No.2004/001. On receipt by the Plaintiff of the
shipping documents under the above L/C, it delivered the same for clearance of
the consignment through M/s Al-Nawab Traders Karachi as instructed by the

Defendant No.1 vide letter No.DO/DPOL-ABL/04-03/2004 dated 22-042004(Annex-G/2). By the said letter Defendant No.1 also advised the Plaintiff
that after getting released the imported goods the same may be dispatched to its
store at its factory premises at Plot No. 12-A New Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad
Kashmir). Accordingly, the Plaintiff delivered the imported goods at the above
place as per the instruction of the Defendant No.1. Similarly, Defendant No.1 also
accepted Bill of Exchange for US$ 214,130.00 dated 30-03-2004 (Annex-G/3)
and forwarded the same to the Plaintiff under the cover of the Letter
No.DPOL/4/4 dated 22-04-2004(Annex-G/4). By the above the Letter
No.DPOL/4/4 dated 22-04-2004, Defendant No.1 confirmed and assured the
Plaintiff to make the payment under the aforesaid Bill of Exchange on its due date
of 28-06-2004. However, Defendant No.1 failed to pay the amount due under the
Bill of Exchange of US$ 214,130.00 equivalent to Rs, 9,019,498.00 on the due
date of 30-06-2004. Therefore, the aforesaid outstanding amount was converted
into FADB (Finance Against Dishonored Bills) as per the original approval.
10.
That in addition to the documents mentioned in para-9 above of this plaint, as

security for the above Running Finance, Cash Finance and L/C limit/FADB, the
Defendant Nos.1 & 5 mortgaged and charged their assets with the Plaintiff.
Details of the mortgaged and hypothecated assets and the documents whereby
said mortgages and charges were created are as under:
C A. Mortgages & charges by the Defendant No.1.

i.
Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds (Annex H).
ii.
ix.
Form X dated 28.08.1999 (Annex H/2).
x.
Certificate of Charge Registration dated 01.09.1999 (Annex H/2a).
xi.
Deed of Floating Charge dated 24.01.2002 (Annex H/3).
xii.
Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed dated 24.01.2002 (Annex H/4).
xiii.
xiv.
Form XVI dated 24.01.2002 (Annex H/6).
ix.
Certificate of Charge Registration dated 26.01.2002 (Annex H/7).
xi.
General Power of Attorney dated 07-08-2000 (Annex H/8).

the land measuring 304152.16 Sq.Ft bearing Plot No.12-A situated at New
Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad Kashmir) together with all present and future
both present and future. Copy of the Lease Deed dated 09-06-1996 deposited in
original with the Plaintiff for creation of equitable mortgage is attached as Annex
(H/3).
B.
Mortgage by the Defendant No. 5.

(I). Mortgaged Property:
(II).
Documents executed and furnished:

(i).
(ii).
(iii).
(iv).
(v).
(vi).
Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed (Annex-I).

Mortgage Deed bearing registration No. 3855 registered with the
Sub-Registrar City, Lahore on 16-05-2002 (Annex-I/1).
General Power of Attorney (Annex I/2).
Naqal Register Haqdaran Zamin evidencing mortgage
in favour of the Plaintiff (Annex I/3).
Letter of Continuity of Mortgage dated 25.04.2003 (Annex I/4).
Following original sale deeds were deposited with the Plaintiff to
create equitable mortgage;
D
a. Sale Deed registered with Sub Registrar, City
b. Sale Deed registered with Sub Registrar, City
c. Sale Deed registered with Sub Registrar, City
d. Sale Deed registered with Sub Registrar, City
e. Sale Deed registered with Sub Registrar, City
f. Sale Deed registered with Sub Registrar, City
20.03.1982 as Document No 3537 (Annex-I/10).
11.
Lahore on
Lahore on
Lahore on
Lahore on
Lahore on
Lahore on
That the Defendant Nos.2 to 4 and the Defendants No. 6 to 9 also executed
Personal Guarantees (Annex- J to J/2) and the Corporate Guarantee along with
the Letter of Awareness respectively (Annex- J/3 to J/4) in favour of the Plaintiff
Bank in consideration of and as joint security for the Running Finance, Cash
Finance and L/C limit extended to and availed by Defendant No.1 which are
subject matter of this suit.
12.
That on maturity of the aforesaid Running Finance, Cash Finance and L/C limit
mentioned in paras 8 & 9 on 31-03-2002 the Defendants requested the Plaintiff to
renew the same. However, pending formal approval by the Plaintiff to renew the
above-facilities, the same being revolving limits were continued to be availed by
Defendant No.1. Subsequently, the above three facilities were formally renewed
firstly up to 30-06-2003 and then upto 30.06.2004 vide Sanction Advices dated
05-10-2002 and 12.09.2003 respectively. Copies of Resolutions dated 08.03.2002
& 30.05.2003 passed by the Directors of Defendant No. 1 for requesting the
Plaintiff for renewal of limits for the periods upto 30.06.2003 and 30.06.2004
respectively and aforesaid Sanction Advices dated 05.10.2002 & 12.09.2003 are
attached herewith as Annexures K, K /1, K /2 & K /3
However, although the above facilities were renewed and utilized by the
Defendants, they failed to execute the documents for renewal on one pretext or
another such as they started raising objections as to the applicable rate of markup. Copies of letters dated 12-07-2002, 19-11-2002 and 01-02-2003 requesting for
reduction in mark-up and acknowledging their liabilities are attached as AnnexL/1 and L/2 and L/3. Similarly, vide letter dated 08-02-2003 (Annex-L/4)
Defendants undertook to pay Rs.2.5 Million per month in aggregate against the
mark-up for the year 2002 payable by Defendant No.1 on the above two facilities
as well as by the other companies of the Diamond Group of Industries.
Defendants again vide letter dated 20-02-2003 (Annex-L/5) again undertook that
mark up for the years 2002 and 2003 would be adjusted latest by 31-12-2003 and
31-12-2004 respectively by payment of Rs.2.5 Million per month but they failed
to honor their commitments.
13.
That through the letter dated 18-09-2003 (Annex- L/6) Plaintiff forwarded to the
Defendants the aforesaid Sanction Advice dated 12-09-2003 whereby the
aforesaid Running Finance, Cash Finance and L/C limit were renewed upto 3006-2004. By the above letter Plaintiff advised the Defendants to complete
documents and other formalities for the aforesaid renewed facilities. Later on vide
another letter dated 25-09-2003 (Annex- L/7) Defendants were again advised not
only to pay the outstanding markup as on 30-06-2003 amounting to Rs.10.638
Million against the Running Finance and Rs.18.163 Million against the Cash
Finance but also to complete formalities for the renewed facilities. However,
Defendants not only failed to complete the required documents but also vide letter
dated 27-09-2003 (Annex- L/8) refused to accept the aforesaid sanction advice by
wrongly disputing the amount of the aforesaid outstanding markup etc. As the
objections raised in the aforesaid letter dated 27-09-2003 were totally wrong, the
Plaintiff vide its letter dated 16-10-2003 (Annex-L/9) gave comprehensive reply
as well as it was conveyed to the Defendants to corporate and liquidate its
liabilities.
14.
That from the above facts, it is clear that all the possible assistance was given and
granted to the Defendant No.1 by the Plaintiff from time to time as aforesaid by
way of providing Running Finance Facility, Cash Finance Facility and Letter of
Credit Facility as well as their renewal and enhancement. However, Defendant
No.1 as well as other Defendants failed to reciprocate in similar manner and failed
to pay/liquidate all of the aforesaid Running Finance Facility, Cash Finance
Facility and and Letter of Credit Facility/FADB on their due dates of 30-06-2004.
Although as aforesaid the Defendants have been acknowledging their liabilities
from time to time but failed to pay the amounts due under the respective facilities.
Copies of Letters whereby the Defendants acknowledged their liability and
committed to make payments have already been mentioned above and attached
with the plaint.
15.
That every effort was made by the Plaintiff Bank to recover the outstanding
amounts from the Defendants but all such efforts were wasted as Defendants
failed to pay the aforesaid liabilities amounting to Rs. 101,391,028.14 as on 3006-2005. They were liable to pay the aforesaid amount but failed to pay the same
despite several requests from the Plaintiff Bank as aforesaid. Hence, this suit.
Particulars of the facilities subject matter of the suit as per Section 9(3) of
the Ordinance, 2001 are as under:
A. Running Finance of Rs.50.0 Million.
(ii)

by Defendant No.1.
(ii)

the Defendant No.1.
Statement of Account).
(iii)

Statement of Account
is Annex-M.
(iv)
Markup payable upto

30.06.2005
is Annex M/1).
Markup paid
are given in the Annex M/1 above).
(v)
Rs. 3,969,964,743.99
Rs. 3,922,979,691.30
Rs. 49,985,052.69
Rs.22,216,664.87
Rs.4,582,646.00
(viii)
(viii)

(iv-v).
Rs. 17,634,018.87

and markup payable (iii + vi above) .
Rs. 67,619,071.56
balance principal amount of Rs.49,985,052.69.
B. Cash Finance of Rs.30.0 Million.
(ii)

by Defendant No.1.
Rs. 1,231,467,625.00
(ii)

the Defendant No.1.
Rs. 1,222,074,450.00
(iii)
Rs.9,393,175.00
Statement of Account is Annex-N.

(iv)
Markup payable upto

30.06.2005
is Annex N/1)
Rs.30,573,399.48
(v)
Markup paid
are given in the Annex N/1 above).
Rs.10,213,143.00
(vi)

(iv-v).
Rs 20,360,256.48
(ix)

Rs.29,753,431.48
balance principal amount of Rs.9,393,175.00
C. FADB of Rs,9,019,498.00.
(ii)
16.

by Defendant No.1.
Rs.9,019,498.00
(ii)
Principal Amount paid by the

Defendant No.1.
Rs. 5,647,750.00
(iii)

Statement of Account is Annex-O.
Rs.3,371,748.00
(iv)
Markup payable upto

30.06.2005
is Annex O/1)
Rs.741,696.10
(v)
Markup paid
are given in the Annex O/1 above).
Rs.94, 919.00
(vi)

(iv-v).
Rs.
(vii)
Amount of Finance (principal)

Rs.4, 018,525.10
646,777.10
That the cause of the action arose firstly when the Running Finance Facility, Cash
Finance Facility and L/C limit were granted to Defendant No.1, secondly, when
the said facilities were renewed from time to time, thirdly when the FADB was
created against the aforesaid L/C limit and fourthly when the facilities subject
matter of the suit matured on 30-06-2004 but the same were not adjusted/ dues
against the said financial facilities were not paid on their aforesaid maturity date.
Each acknowledgement by the Defendants of their liability has also constituted a
cause of action. The cause of action still continues as the Defendants have failed
to discharge their obligations under various agreements and security
documents/guarantees despite various demands made by the Plaintiff Bank in this
respect.
17.
The cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Honourable
Court. Financial facilities subject matter of the suit were disbursed and were
repayable in Lahore. Defendant Nos.1 & 5 to 9 are also having their Registered/
Head offices at Lahore. Property mortgaged by the Defendant No.5 is also
situated at Lahore, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Honourable
Court. All Defendants also reside and work for gains at Lahore. Therefore, this
Honourable Court can adjudicate upon this suit.
19.
That the titled suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is valued at Rs.
101,391,028.14 and Court Fee of Rs.15, 000/- has been affixed on this plaint.
a)
In the sum of Rs.101, 391,028.14 with all costs, charges and expenses payable
and Corporate Guarantee furnished by the Defendant Nos.2 to 4 and 6 to 9
respectively as well as sale of all other properties of Defendant Nos.1 to 9.
b)
Court.
c)
To
attach
and
appoint
receiver(s)
of
the
properties
those
were
mortgaged/hypothecated/ charged/ pledged by Defendant Nos.1 & 5 with the

Plaintiff Bank and detailed in the paras- 9 & 10 of the plaint.
d)
e)

PLAINTIFF
(ALLIED BANK LIMITED)
through
RAJA MOHAMMED AKRAM

Senior Advocate
Supreme Court of Pakistan
TEHSEEN YOUSAF
Advocate High Court
VERIFICATION:Verified on oath dated ________ on _______ 2005 that contents of paragraphs 1 to 15
above are true to the best of our knowledge and contents of paragraphs 16 to18 above are
correct to the best of our information which we believe to be true.
DEPONENT
2)E/Backup/Banking/ABL-Diamond-Polymer(1-11)
BEFORE THE HONBLE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
PLA No. 42-B/2005

IN
COS. No.24/2005
titled
Allied Bank Limited
Plaintiff
VERSUS
M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) limited and Others.
RESPONDENTS
(SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 101,391,028.14)
REPLY by the Plaintiff bank (in the form of replication) under Section 10 (7)
of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, on behalf of
the Plaintiff to the Application filed by Defendant No.1 under Section 10(1) of the
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 for leave to Appear
and Defend the Suit.
PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS/OBJECTIONS:
1.
The Application for leave to defend filed by the Defendant completely fails
to comply with mandatory provisions of law as per Section 10 of the
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (hereinafter
referred to as the Ordinance). Section 10(4) of the Ordinance is
reproduced below for ready reference:
(4)
In the case of a suit for recovery instituted by a financial institution the

application for leave to defend shall also specifically state the following:
(a)
The amount of finance availed by the defendant from the financial

institution; the amounts paid by the defendant to the financial institution
and the dates of payments;
(b)
the amount of finance and other amounts relating to the finance payable
by the defendant to the financial institution up to the date of, institution of
the suit;
(c)
The amounts of finance and other amounts relating to the finance payable
by the defendant to the financial institution up to the date of institution of
the suit;
(d)
the amount if any which the defendant disputes as payable to the financial
institution and facts in support thereof.
Explanation. For the purposes of clause (b) any payment made to a financial
institution by a customer in respect of a finance shall be appropriated first
against other amounts relating to the finance and the balance, if any, against the
principal amount of the finance.
2.
As per this mandatory provision of law the Defendant was required to state
the amount of finance and other amounts relating to finance payable by the
Defendant and the amount, if any, which the Defendant disputes.
In the lengthy application for leave to defend this mandatory provision of
law has been completely ignored. The requirement with regard to
information as required to be provided by sub-section 4 has not been
complied with. In such a situation sub-section 6 of Section 10 lays down
that the Application for leave to defend shall be rejected. Sub-section 6 is
(6)
An application for leave to defend which does not comply with the
requirements of sub-section (3), (4) where applicable and (5) shall be
rejected, unless the defendant discloses therein sufficient cause for his
inability to comply with any such requirement.
Since the Application for leave to defend has not complied with the
mandatory requirements of Sub-sections 3, 4 and 5, the same be rejected
and the suit be decreed in full.
3.
That as required by law quoted above substantial question of law as well as

facts, which require evidence, has to be specifically formulated and stated.
This provision of law has also not been complied with. The application for
Leave to Defend may be rejected and the suit decreed in full.
REPLY TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS/SUBMISSIONS:

1.
Needs no comment.
2.
Denied vehemently. Titled suit is not time barred as alleged. It is merely a

bald allegation without mentioning any specific instance, reason or ground
on the basis whereof the suit is alleged to be time barred. Therefore, titled
suit is not liable to be dismissed as alleged.
3.
Denied vehemently. Titled suit is maintainable and is not bad either for misjoinder of parties or causes of action as alleged. It is merely a bald
allegation without mentioning any specific instance, reason, ground or any
specific provision of law on the basis whereof the suit is alleged to be bad
for mis-joinder of parties or causes of action. Therefore, all allegations
contained in para under reply being totally wrong and baseless are
specifically denied word by word and line by line.
4.
Denied vehemently. Plaint has been signed and verified in accordance with
the law.
5.
Denied vehemently. Financial facilities subject matter of the suit were

disbursed and were repayable in Lahore. Defendant No.1 is also having its
Head office at Lahore. All Defendants including the answering Defendant
also work for gains at Lahore. As stated in the plaint, the cause of action has
also arisen in Lahore that is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this
Honourable Court. Therefore, this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to
adjudicate upon this suit.
6.
Contents as stated are denied word by word and line by line. Plaintiff has
neither approached this Honourable Court with un-cleaned hands nor
suppressed any material fact in the plaint. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to
the relief claimed in the suit.
7.
Denied vehemently. All assertions contained in para under reply being

totally wrong and baseless are specifically denied word by word and line by
line. Plaintiff or any of its employees has neither committed any breach of
trust nor any act of misappropriation nor manipulated accounts of the
Defendant No.1 as alleged. Similarly, they had committed no violation of
any norms of banking law or practice.
8.
Denied Vehemently. Application under reply has not has been properly and
competently signed, filed or instituted on behalf of the Defendant No.1.
9.
Denied vehemently. Amount claimed in the titled suit is legally and

lawfully payable by the Defendant No.1.No substantial question of law or
facts necessitating recording of evidence for deciding the titled suit has
been
raised
through
the
application
under
reply.
Accordingly,
Applicant/Defendant No.1 is not entitled to grant of leave to appear and

defend the titled suit that may be decreed in full.
10.
Denied vehemently. Denied that either the suit has been improperly
instituted or that it has been signed, instituted or filed incompetently. It is
reiterated that Mr. Raza Saleem Khan, who has signed the plaint and
instituted the titled suit on behalf of the Plaintiff, is the Chief
Manager/Manager Branch/Branch Manager of the Plaintiff's branch at
Badami Bagh, Lahore. Under Section 9(1) of the Ordinance of 2001, a
Branch Manager is authorized to institute a suit on behalf of a Financial
Institution. Accordingly, the titled suit has been lawfully and authorisedly
instituted.
11.
Denied vehemently. All allegations contained in para under reply being

line. In fact, as stated in the plaint, all possible assistance was given and
granted to the Defendant No.1 by the Plaintiff from time to time by way of
providing various financial facilities including the Running Finance
Facility, Cash Finance Facility and L/C limit/FADB as well as their renewal
and enhancement. However, Defendant No.1 as well as other Defendants
failed to reciprocate in similar manner and they never fulfilled their
obligations
under
respective
agreements
and
security
documents/guarantees. It is also wrongly stated that the facilities availed by

the Defendant No.1 that are subject matter of the titled suit are linked in any
manner with the facilities availed by the Defendants No.6 to 9.
12.
Denied vehemently. All assertions/allegations, except admission regarding

availing of the facilities by the Defendant No.1 from the Plaintiff, contained
in para under reply being totally wrong and baseless are specifically denied
word by word and line by line. Denied that the facilities availed by the
Defendant No.1 that are subject matter of the titled suit are linked in any
manner with the facilities availed by the Defendants No. 5 to 9 despite the
fact that for the purpose of convenience single sanction letters were used to
be issued. However, Defendants No. 1 &, 5 to 9 being separate legal

entities under the law are liable for the facilities availed by them.
13 to 16.
Denied vehemently. All allegations contained in paras under reply being
line. Furthermore, all assertions, allegations and points raised in paras under
reply do not relate to the subject matter of the titled suit. Matter of the
Guarantees issued by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant No. 6 is
subject matter of C.O.S No18/2005 that is also pending before this
Honourable Court. However, correct facts regarding the said Guarantees
issued by the Plaintiff in favour of the customs authorities are given below
briefly to repel and deny the assertions in para under reply;
POSITION REGARDING BANK GUARANTEES:
It is submitted that with regard to the encashment of bank guarantee no loss
whatsoever to the Defendant No.6 has been caused as enumerate below:
a)
Bank guarantee for Rs.260.569 Million had been furnished by the

Plaintiff Bank, at the request of the Defendant No.6, to the Customs
Authorities with regard to the goods imported by the Defendant No.6
for Gadoon Amazai Industrial Estate. On a demand from them
accompanied by threats of strict legal action, the said Bank
Guarantees were encashed and the above amount was paid to the
Customs Authorities (on behalf of the Defendant No.6).
b)
As per the latest law declared by the Supreme Court of Pakistan

encashment of a Bank Guarantee cannot be withheld on any basis
and the guarantee has to be encahsed when called upon by the
beneficiary of the Bank Guarantee.
c)
Bank Guarantees were encashed as per the orders of the Supreme

Court of Pakistan as under:
18-02-1999. Supreme Court Order in CM. No.140/99 in the CA. I
am, therefore, inclined to grant stay against encashment of
bank/Insurance guarantee to the extent the amount which the
petitioners are entitled as rebate on customs duty in terms of
the above E.C.C. decision. The bank guarantee may not be
encashed upto the extent of that amount. The petition for

leave to appeal may be fixed in Court as soon as certified
copy of the order of High Court is made available by the
Petitioners.
It is submitted that the Bank Guarantees had been
furnished with regard to the entire amount claimed by the
customs authorities, where the dispute before the Supreme
Court was only with regard to one time 25% rebate for one
year claimed by the Defendant Company.
18-10-1999.
Leaving the amount of 25% covered by
Insurance Guarantees the Bank Guarantees to the tune

of Rs.260.569 Million were called upon by Customs
authorities and encahsed.
05-06-2000.
CA/ 903/999 Diamond Industries Vs.
Federation of Pakistan.
Status quo is maintained as
regards recoveries and encashment of Bank Guarantees. The

Defendant No.6 (Diamond Industries Limited) suppressed the
fact from the Supreme Court that the Bank Guarantees had
been encahsed earlier.
Nothing was done after this order. Even this order
related to one time rebate of 25% on goods imported during
one year only.
The Defendant No.6 has executed documents for this
amount and made part payment. It is estopped from
questioning the encashment of Bank Guarantees.
d)
No loss to Defendant No.6 on account of encashment of Bank

Guarantees. The Defendant No.6 had raised some claims with
regard to the concessions available to it with reference to the
Gadoon
Amazai
benefits/concession
granted
by
the
Government of Pakistan. Out of the above amount the

Defendant No.6 has received a rebate of Rs.63.00 Million. It
will or might have got further amounts on account of rebate if
entitled under the law. If not found entitled then the amount
paid to the Customs Authorities as a result of the encashment
of the above Bank Guarantee would be a valid discharge of its
liability. In either case there is no question of any loss to the
Defendant No.6 on this account. To reiterate, if the Defendant
No.6 is entitled to any further rebate, it will get the refund and
if not the amount paid on account of encashment of Bank
Guarantees on its behalf would be in the discharge of its
liabilities. The Defendant No.6 can therefore have no
grievance and cannot lay any claim on the Plaintiff Bank in
this behalf.
THIS IS A CASE OF ADMITTED LIABILITY.
A.
It is admitted by the Defendant No.6 that the guarantees to the

extent of Rs.264,881,541.00 furnished by the Plaintiff Bank
on behalf of the Defendant No.6 were encashed by the
Customs
Department
(the
admitted
amounts
are
Rs,264,881,514.00. A letter dated 25-06-2003 by the

Defendant Company to the Secretary SBP Committee was
itself attached at page 199 of its Application for Leave to
Defend in C.O.S No.18/2005). As admitted by the Defendant
No.6 in its letter No.DG/02/240 dated 14-09-2002 addressed
to the Plaintiff Bank (at page 210 (Annex-N/8) of the
Application for Leave to Defend in C.O.Sno. 18/2005), the
amount is Rs.265.959 (M).
With this admitted position the liability of the Defendant No.6
is obvious and clear.
B.
The position regarding the orders passed by the Honourable

Supreme Court of Pakistan is further explained below. The
entire case of the Defendant No.6 before the Supreme Court
was with regard to one time rebate of 25% on the value of the
raw material imported for the period preceding one year of
the withdrawal of notification SRO 517(I)/89 dated 03-061989.
This position is clear from the order dated 18-02-1999

passed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan which
was annexed as Annex-B/1 at page 30 of the application for
Leave to Defend in C.O.S No.18/2005. For the sake of ready
reference the order is reproduced below in full.
The Learned Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Irfan Qadir and Mr.
K.C. Sabir. The learned counsel contends that in team of ECC
decision, dated 31-03-1992, petitioners were entitled to at least one
time rebate of 25% on the value of raw material imported for the
period preceding one year of the withdrawal of notification SRO
No.517(I)/89 dated 03-06-1989. It is an admitted position that the
notification was withdrawn on 09-05-19991. Therefore, prima
facie, the appellants/petitioners are entitled to the rebate in customs
duty in terms of the above ECC decision.
I am, therefore, inclined to grant stay against encashment of
bank/insurance guarantee to the extent of the amount which the
petitioners are entitled as rebate on custom duty in terms of the
above ECC decision. The bank guarantee may not be encashed
upto the extent of that amount. The petition for leave to appeal may
be fixed in court as soon as the copy of the order of High Court is
made available by the party thereof.
C.
It will kindly be observed that the encashment of

bank/insurance guarantees was stayed only to the extent of
the amount to which the Defendant No.6 was entitled as
rebate on duty i.e. one time rebate of 25% on the value of raw
material imported for the period preceding one year from
withdrawal of notification SRO 517(I)/89 dated 03-06-1989.
The guarantees were got encashsed by the Collector of
Customs accordingly and in strict compliance with the order
of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. The case was
finally decided on 25-06-2004 vide judgment of the
Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan placed on record as
Annex-B/2 at page 31 of the documents attached with the
Application of Leave to Defend in C.O.S No.18/2005. The
first paragraph of this order which specifies the point
involved the in Appeal is reproduced below for ready
reference.
This appeal by leave of the court is directed against the
judgment dated 10-02-1999 of a Division Bench of the Peshawar
High Court through which Constitutional Petition No.1415 of 1997
filed by the appellant for grant of one time relief of 25% of the
total duty value of the raw materials on the basis of the similar
criteria and formula applied in the case of two other industries
namely M/s Alkhair Gadoon and M/s Khyber Plastic Industries has
been dismissed.
Paragraph 23 of the judgment dated 25-06-2003 is also

23.
For the foregoing, this appeal is accepted, decisions already

made by the respondents in the matter of
determination/assessment of one time compensation in the
case of the CBR are hereby declared to be without lawful
authority and of no legal effect and quashed. The Member
Central Board of Revenue is hereby directed to decide
afresh the case of the appellant as regards one time relief of
25% to the total duty value of the raw materials on the basis
of the same criteria and the parameters applied in the case
of M/s Alkhair Gadoon and M/s Khyber Plastic Industries
and full benefit should be given in the light of the
observations and the facts noted above. As the matter has
already been delayed, the needful shall be done within one
month from the receipt of this judgment.
No Bank guarantees were encashed after the date of

this order. The only point of controversy between the
Defendant No.6 and the Customs Department was with regard
to the determination of one time rebate of 25% admissible to
the company. The balance 75% had to be paid in any case.
The Bank Guarantees were for the entire amount of the claim
by the Customs Authorities for good imported.
D.
At one stage, the order was passed by the Collector of

Customs determining their entitlement and they received a
sum of Rs.63.00 Million on that account. The disputed
quantum of rebate admissible to them was the matter to be
decided by the customs authorities. If they are found entitled
to any amount it will reimburse to them, beyond that they
would have to pay to the Customs Authorities and the bank
guarantees were encashed accordingly.
E.
It is submitted that no valid dispute could be raised by the

Defendant No.6 with regard to the encashment of the bank
guarantees. If it is found entitled for re-imbursement as per
the order of the Court, that has been/would be (may be

already done) given to it and the bank guarantees encashed in
this behalf would be a valid discharge of its liabilities. Any
hue and cry on this point is wholly unreasonable and is almost
rabble rousing.
F.
When the encashment of guarantees is admitted on the basis

submitted in the preceding paras, it is therefore admitted
liability of the Defendant No.6, part of which paid and
furnished securities for the amount. The contempt application
filed by the Defendant No.6 also failed. The order dated 1510-2002 by the Supreme Court of Pakistan is placed on the
file of the Application for Leave to Defend in C.O.S 18/2005
at page 190). This further clarifies that the dispute was only
with regard to one time rebate of 25% on the goods imported
while the Bank Guarantees had been furnished for the entire
amount of customs duty etc. demanded by the Collector
Customs. The encashment of Bank Guarantees to the extent
of 75% could not have been disputed.
17.
Contents as stated are denied word by word and line by line. It is denied
that the Defendant No.1 had rejected terms of sanction letters dated 05-102002 or 12-09-2003. As stated in paras 12 & 13 of the plaint, Defendant
No.1 availed the facilities that were approved through the said sanction
advices. Therefore, all allegations contained in para under reply are denied
and for this purpose contents of paras 12 & 13 of the plaint are reiterated.
18.
Contents as stated are denied word by word and line by line. Therefore, all
allegations contained in para under reply are denied and for this purpose
contents of paras 12 & 13 of the plaint are reiterated.
19 to 25.
All assertions, allegations and points raised in paras under reply do not
relate to the subject matter of the titled suit. Matter of the settlement under
BPD Circular No.29 of 2002 is subject matter of C.O.S No18/2005 that is
also pending before this Honourable Court. However, correct facts are
given below briefly to repel and deny the assertions in para under reply;
a)
The case was taken by the Defendants directly to SBP was with
regard to the encashment of Bank Guarantees (explained above in
details). A copy of the circular is enclosed as Mark-A with this
Reply. This circular does not permit a write-off of the liabilities as is
clear from paragraph 6 and 7 of the Circular reproduced below:
b)
6.
Before allowing write-off, all liquid assets including FDRs,

Government Securities. Share Certificates etc. held under
lien and pledged goods should be realized and sale
proceeds thereof appropriated towards the reduction of
outstanding liability of the borrower. This should be legally
cleared by the bank/NBFIs legal counsel.
7.
The latest valuation of properties/stocks held as security

having value of Rs.2.5 million and above indicating their
present market value as well as their forced sale value duly
assessed by a surveyor/architect, on the approved panel of
Pakistan Banks Association (PBA), should be produced
before the approving authority.
Other provisions of this circular will be brought to the notice

of this Honourable Court at the time of arguments. Where the
amount exceeds Rs.25.00 lacs, provision is made under the
heading of Category-C of the Circular which speaks of
Forced Sale Value which is to be determined by an
independent professional valuer who should be listed on the
panel of valuers maintained by Pakistan Banks Association.
Nothing of the sort was done in the present case and the
Defendant No.6 without any basis tried to bring its case
before the Committee of the State Bank of Pakistan. The said
Committee did not find any justification for granting any
relief to the Defendant No.6. However, purely as a matter of
tactical step, the Defendant No.6 obtained letter No. MR/9042
dated 18-01-2005 (Annex-P at page 235 of PLA in C.O.S
No.18/2005) wherein it is stated that the Committee has

Noted that you (Diamond Industries Limited) and ABL have
agreed to settle the outstanding liabilities as mentioned
therein. In fact there was no such settlement whatsoever
between the Defendant No.6 and the Plaintiff Bank. In fact no
valid dispute existed. Wholly false representation was made
by the Defendant No.6 and only Noted by the Committee.
To reiterate it is wholly incorrect to state that any
agreement was reached between the Defendant No.6 and the
Plaintiff Bank. Only Noting by State Bank of Pakistan has
no legal force. This was due to some misunderstanding and
misrepresentation by the Defendant Company. It is neither
factually correct nor legally enforceable nor has it any value
whatsoever.
c)
As submitted above there is no concept of writing off of the

principal amount. In the present case enough security is
available with the Plaintiff Bank for realization of its debts
from the Defendant No. 6 for which purpose the suit has been
filed. The correct position was conveyed to the Defendant No.
6 vide letter dated 05-05-2005 Mark-B. A copy of State Bank
Pakistan BSD Circular No.2/99 dated 16-07-1999 which
governs such a situation is enclosed as Mark-C with this
reply to application for Leave to Defend.
It is further submitted that vide the aforesaid BPD
Circular No.2 of 1999 dated 16 July, 1999, State Bank of Pakistan

almost prohibited write off of loans, any claim by the Defendant
No.6 with regard to writing off of the principal amount is therefore
factually incorrect and legally untenable. There was no reason
whatsoever for writing off any portion of the principal amount.
Neither could any functionary make any such concession in that
behalf nor was there any consideration or reason for the same. Any
claim by the Defendants that any amount was to be written off is
without any factual and legal basis and the averments made need
summary rejection.
26.
Denied vehemently. Furthermore, titled suit has been filed for recovery of
over dues and not as retaliation of any notice.
27.
Contents as stated being wrong are denied. Statement of Account and

summary attached with the application under reply are fabricated/
concocted/ discrepant. Particulars under section 10(4) have not been given
in accordance with the mandatory provisions of law. Correct and
authenticated Statements of Account have been attached with the Plaint.
Similarly, particulars under section 9(3) given in para 15 of the plaint are
correct and all amounts claimed in the suit are legal. Applicant is not
entitled to any compensation as alleged.
28 & 29.
Denied vehemently. No additional document can be placed on record

of the case.
Reply on merit.
(1).
(2).
Needs no comment.
Denied vehemently. It is submitted that Mr. Raza Saleem Khan who has
signed the plaint and instituted the titled suit on behalf of the Plaintiff is the
Branch Manager of the Plaintiff's branch at Main G.T. Road, Shahdara,
Lahore. Under Section 9(1) of the Ordinance of 2001, the Branch Manager
can institute a suit on behalf of a Financial Institution. Accordingly, the
titled suit has been lawfully and authorisedly instituted. The said Manager
is also conversant with the facts of the titled case.
(3).
Needs no comment.
(4).
Contents of the para under reply are denied. As stated in the para-4 of the
plaint, Defendant Nos.2 to 4 and the Defendant Nos. 6 to 9 stood as
guarantors by executing personal guarantees and corporate guarantee
facilities extended to and availed by Defendant No. 1 from the Plaintiff
Bank. The said Guarantees are legally enforceable and are not invalid, void
or of no legal effect and value as alleged. Similarly, by not denying creation
of mortgages of their properties by the Defendants Nos. 1 & 5 legality and
enforceability of the said mortgages had been admitted. Furthermore,
neither enforcement of guarantees nor the titled suit is barred by time.
(5).
Denied vehemently. Correct address of the Defendant No.5 has been given
in the heading of the plaint.
(6).
Denied vehemently:Contents as stated are denied vehemently. No illegality whatsoever was

committed by the Plaintiff as alleged and every thing has been lawfully
done.
(ii)
Contents as stated are denied vehemently. No illegality whatsoever

was committed by the Plaintiff as alleged and pledged stocks have
not lost their value due to any act of the Plaintiff. Furthermore, no
illegal mark up or mark up on mark up has been charged as alleged.
(iii)
Statements of the account attached with the plaint are true and same
are neither fabricated, concocted or discrepant nor it contains false or
unauthorized debits etc. No illegal amount or mark up or mark up on
mark up has been charged or recovered as alleged. All amounts have
been charged in accordance with the agreements. As stated in plaint
disbursement was made. Further no illegal mark up has been charged
as alleged.
(7).
Needs no comments.
(8).
Denied vehemently. Correct facts have been stated in para 8 of the plaint
the contents whereof are reiterated to deny wrong facts mentioned in para
under reply.
(9).
All allegations contained in para under reply being totally wrong and
baseless are specifically denied word by word and line by line. Plaintiff
never acted in any illegal or unlawful manner. Contents of para 9 of plaint
are reiterated. No trust has been breached by the Plaintiff. None of the
documents mentioned in para 9 of the plaint is fabricated, doctored, forged
or misused by the Plaintiff as alleged;
(i).
Denied. All allegations contained in para under reply being

totally wrong and baseless are specifically denied word by
word and line by line. Plaintiff never acted in any illegal or
unlawful manner. All of the documents mentioned in para 9 of
the plaint were executed by the Defendant No.1 on the dates
given thereon, are legally enforceable and the same are not
unlawful or void on any of the grounds mentioned in para

under reply. Denied that any blank document was obtained.
All documents were signed on the dates given thereon, were
not blank and are legally enforceable and not invalid, void or
of no legal effect or without value for any alleged reason.
Furthermore, by virtue of section 18(3) of the Ordinance of
2001, said documents are legally enforceable and are not
invalid or void for any alleged reason.
(ii).
All documents conform to the sanction letter.
(iii).
All allegations contained in para under reply being totally

wrong and baseless are specifically denied word by word and
line by line. Mark up has been charged in accordance with the
agreements. Plaintiff never acted in any illegal or unlawful
manner.
(iv).
Denied vehemently.
(v).
Denied vehemently.
(vi). Denied vehemently.

(10). All allegations contained in para under reply being totally wrong and
never acted in any illegal or unlawful manner. All of the documents
mentioned in para 10(A) & (B) of the plaint were executed by the
Defendant Nos.1 & 5 respectively. The said documents as a well as
mortgages created thereby are legally enforceable and the same are not
unlawful or void on any of the grounds mentioned in para under reply.
Neither any blank documents were obtained nor are same fabricated.
Furthermore, under law, a mortgage being transfer of interest in a specific
property as security for a loan continued to be legally enforceable.
11.
never acted in any illegal or unlawful manner. All of the personal and
corporate guarantees mentioned in para 11 of the plaint were executed by
the Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 as well as by the Defendant Nos. 6 to 9
respectively. The said guarantees are legally enforceable and the same are
not unlawful or void on any of the grounds mentioned in para under reply.
All of the aforesaid guarantees are legally enforceable and an out right
decree can be passed against the Defendants on the basis thereof without
recording any evidence:
a).
Denied vehemently. Guarantees have been furnished for the

Purchase Prices payable under the agreements, which include
mark up.
b).
Denied vehemently. By the Corporate Guarantee attached

with the plaint, facility of the Demand Finance availed by the
Defendant No.6 from the Plaintiff which is the subject matter
of C.O.S No.18/2005 was not guaranteed.
12.
always fulfilled its promises made to the Defendants. It is submitted that the
facilities subject matter of the suit were on revolving basis. It is further
submitted that on maturity of the Running Finance, the Cash Finance and
L/c limit/FADB all Defendants requested the Plaintiff to renew the same.
Copies of Resolutions dated 08.03.2002 & 30.05.2003 passed by the
Directors of Defendant No. 1 for requesting the Plaintiff for renewal of
limits for the periods upto 30.06.2003 and 30.06.2004 respectively and the
Sanction Advices dated 05.10.2002 & 12.09.2003 issued by the Plaintiff are
attached with the plaint as Annexures K, K /1, K /2 & K /3. The Defendants
utilized the said renewed facilities. Copies of letters dated 12-07-2002, 1911-2002 and 01-02-2003 requesting for reduction in mark-up and
acknowledging their liabilities are attached with the plaint as Annex-L/1
and L/2 and L/3. Also denied that the Defendants rejected the Sanction
Advices dated 05.10.2002 & 12.09.2003 but they merely requested for the
reduction of mark up rate. Therefore, mark up is payable by the Defendants
and the titled suit is also not barred by time. It is again reiterated that
financial facilities to the customers are granted by the banks as per usual
banking practice, their internal regulations and in accordance with the
prudential regulations issued by SBP and it is not necessary that facilities
should always be provided as per requirement and request of customers.
13.
never acted in any illegal or unlawful manner. It is further submitted that on
maturity of the Running Finance, the Cash Finance and L/c limit/FADB all
Defendants requested the Plaintiff to renew the same. Copies of Resolutions

dated 08.03.2002 & 30.05.2003 passed by the Directors of Defendant No. 1
for requesting the Plaintiff for renewal of limits for the periods upto
30.06.2003 and 30.06.2004 respectively and the Sanction Advices dated
05.10.2002 & 12.09.2003 issued by the Plaintiff are attached with the plaint
as Annexures K, K /1, K /2 & K /3. To deny the contents of para under
reply, the contents of para 13 of plaint are reiterated.
14.
Denied vehemently. Plaintiff never acted in any illegal or unlawful manner

and it never caused prejudice, harm, damage, injuries to the Defendants as
alleged. To deny the contents of para under reply, the contents of para 14 of
plaint are reiterated.
15.
Contents of para under reply being totally wrong and baseless are
specifically denied word by word and line by line. Amounts mentioned in
para 15 of the plaint are legally payable by the defendants. To further deny
contents of para under reply, the contents of para 15 of plaint are reiterated.
Correct particulars of the amounts payable by the Defendants are given in
para 15 of the plaint. Defendant No.1 has not given particulars under
section 10(4) of the Ordinance of 2001 as well as has not given any reason
for not giving the said particulars. Therefore, under law application under
reply is liable to be dismissed and an outright decree is liable to be passed
for the suit amounts.
16.
Denied vehemently. Plaintiff has cause of action against the Defendants

and the plaint discloses the same. Also denied that the titled suit is time
barred.
17.
Denied vehemently. This Honourable Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate

upon the titled suit.
18.
Denied vehemently.
REPLY TO COUNTER CLAIM
(A).
Denied vehemently. Plaintiff never acted in any illegal or unlawful

manner and it never caused prejudice, harm, damages, injuries to the
Defendants as alleged.
(B).

manner and it never ruined the business of the Defendants as
alleged.
(C).

manner as alleged. All allegations contained in para under reply
being totally wrong and baseless are specifically denied word by
word and line by line.
(D).
Denied vehemently. Answering Defendant is not entitled to any

claim of damages/compensation of Rs. 100.00 million or for any
other amount as alleged.
It is further submitted that the aforesaid counter claim is not
maintainable for the following reasons:
I.
No court fee has been affixed on the application under reply

for the counter claim,
II.
This Honourable Court exercising its jurisdiction under the

Ordinance of 2001 has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any
claim for any alleged compensation and damages.
In view of the above facts, for the reasons stated in the Preliminary
Submissions/Objections as well as that the Defendant has not raised any
Substantial Questions of law and facts necessitating recording of the evidence for
disposal of the titled suit, it is respectfully prayed that the application under reply
may kindly be rejected and the suit of the Plaintiff Bank may kindly be decreed
out rightly against the Defendants.
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
through
RAJA MOHAMMED AKRAM

Senior Advocate
VERIFICATION:
It is verified on oath at __________ on __________ 2006 that the contents of the

paras 1 to 15 of Reply on Merits and Reply of Counter Claim are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge and belief and the contents of Preliminary
Submissions/Objections, Reply to Preliminary Objections and paragraphs of 16 to
18 of Reply on Merits are believed to be correct based on information received by

me and believed by me to be correct and true.
DEPONENT
PLA No. 45-B/2005

IN
COS. No.24/2005
titled
Allied Bank Limited
Plaintiff
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS
the Plaintiff to the Application filed by Defendant Nos. 6 to 9 under Section 10(1) of
the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 for leave to
Appear and Defend the Suit.

1.
Needs no comment.
2.

lawfully payable by the answering Defendants. No substantial question of
law or facts necessitating recording of evidence for deciding the titled suit
has been raised through the application under reply. Accordingly,
Applicants/ answering Defendants are not entitled to grant of leave to
appear and defend the titled suit which may be decreed in full.
3.
instituted.
4.

line. Plaintiff or any of its employees has not committed any of the alleged
illegal acts. Similarly, Plaintiff has neither concealed any fact nor
committed fraud, mal administration nor made violation of any norms of
banking law or practice etc. Therefore, titled suit is not liable to be
dismissed as alleged.
5.
Denied vehemently. Plaintiff has neither committed fraud, cheating, forgery

and misrepresentation etc nor its behavior is disgusting etc. Plaintiff has
neither approached this Honourable Court with un-cleaned hands nor
suppressed any material fact in the plaint. All assertions contained in para
under reply being totally wrong and baseless are specifically denied word
by word and line by line.
6.
Denied vehemently. Titled suit is not time barred as alleged.
7.
Denied vehemently. Neither any additional document can be placed on

record of the case nor the Applicants allowed to record evidence or made
further submissions.
Denied vehemently. Suit is neither mala fide nor through the titled suit
8.
Plaintiff intends to recover illegal amounts. Similarly, titled suit is not

frivolous or vexatious as alleged.
9.
Needs no comments.
10.
Contents as stated are denied. Corporate Guarantee attached with the plaint
is legally enforceable under law;
a. Needs no comments.
b. Denied vehemently. Corporate Guarantee attached with the plaint
has been lawfully and authorisedly executed is legally
enforceable under law.
c. Needs no comments.
d. Denied vehemently. By the Corporate Guarantee attached with
the plaint, facility of the Demand Finance availed by the
Defendant No.12 from the Plaintiff which is the subject matter of

C.O.S No.18/2005 was not guaranteed. Therefore, said guarantee
has not attached with the said suit.
e. Denied vehemently.
11.
It is clarified that in C.O.S No 18/2005 and C.O.S No 25/2005 pending

before this Honourable Court and in the suit pending before the learned
Banking Court, Lahore, the sums of Rs. 253.652 million, Rs. 96,709
million and Rs. 18.264 million have been claimed. Subject matters of the
said suits are totally different from the titled suit.
12.
Contents being incorrectly stated are denied. No incorrect fact has been
given in the respective suits. Subject matter of C.O.S No. 18/2005 is totally
different from the titled suit. Sanction letter of the facility that is subject
matter of C.O.S No. 18/2005 has been attached therewith.
13.
Denied vehemently. Contents of PLA filed by the Defendant No.6 in C.O.S

No. 18/2005 cannot be read in this suit as subject matter of the both suits is
totally different from each others.
14.
Contents as stated are denied. Corporate Guarantee attached with the plaint
is legally enforceable under law and a decree against the answering
Defendants is liable to be passed.
Reply on merit.
(1).
(2).
Needs no comment.
(3).
Needs no comment.
(4).
Contents of the para under reply are denied. Answering Defendants stood as
guarantors by executing Corporate Guarantee in favour of the Plaintiff
Bank in consideration of the financial facilities extended to and availed by
Defendant No. 1 from the Plaintiff Bank. The said Guarantee is legally
enforceable and is not invalid, void or of no legal effect and value as

alleged. It is denied that the Defendant No.1 had rejected terms of sanction
letters dated 05-10-2002 or 12-09-2003. As stated in paras 12 & 13 of the
plaint, Defendant No.1 availed the facilities that were approved through the
said sanction advices.
Enforcement of the Corporate Guarantee is also not barred by time.
(5).
All allegations contained in para under reply are denied.

(i)
Denied vehemently. It is further submitted that on maturity of

the facilities under sanction letter dated 9-04-2001 all
Defendants requested the Plaintiff to renew the same. Copies
of Resolutions dated 08.03.2002 & 30.05.2003 passed by the
Directors of Defendant No. 1 for requesting the Plaintiff for
renewal of limits for the periods upto 30.06.2003 and
30.06.2004 respectively and the Sanction Advices dated
05.10.2002 & 12.09.2003 issued by the Plaintiff are attached
with the plaint as Annexures K, K /1, K /2 & K /3.
(ii)
Denied vehemently. Enforcement of the Corporate Guarantee

or other Guarantees is not barred by time.
(iii)
Denied vehemently. It is denied that the Defendant No.1 had

rejected terms of sanction letters dated 05-10-2002 or 12-092003. As stated in paras 12 & 13 of the plaint, Defendant
No.1 availed the facilities that were approved through the said
sanction advices.
(iv)
Denied vehemently. Particulars of the partners of the

Defendant No. 5 has been correctly given in the plaint
(6).
Denied vehemently.
(7).
Needs no comments.
(8).
Denied vehemently.
(9).
Denied vehemently.
(10). Denied vehemently.
(11). Denied vehemently. Contents of para 11 of the plaint are reiterated.

(12). Denied vehemently. As stated in paras 12 & 13 of the plaint, Defendant
No.1 availed the facilities that were approved through the said sanction
advices. Contents of paras 12 & 13 of the plaint are reiterated.
(13)
Contents as stated are denied word by word and line by line. Also denied
that the Defendant No.1 had rejected terms of sanction letters dated 05-102002 or 12-09-2003. Therefore, all allegations contained in para under
reply are denied and for this purpose contents of paras 12 to 14 of the plaint
are reiterated.
(14)
Denied vehemently. No illegality whatsoever was committed by the

Plaintiff as alleged and every thing has been lawfully done. Plaintiff never
acted in any illegal or unlawful manner and it never caused prejudice, harm,
damage, injuries to the Defendants as alleged. To deny the contents of para
under reply, the contents of para 14 of plaint and are reiterated.
(15). Denied vehemently. Amounts mentioned in para 15 of the plaint are legally
payable by the defendants. To further deny contents of para under reply, the
contents of para 15 of plaint are reiterated.
(16). Denied vehemently. Plaintiff has cause of action against the Defendants
and the plaint discloses the same. Also denied that the titled suit is time
barred.
(17).
Denied vehemently.

In view of the above facts that the answering Defendants have not raised any
through
RAJA MOHAMMED AKRAM
Senior Advocate
VERIFICATION:

paras 1 to 15 of Reply on Merits are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief and the contents of Reply to Preliminary Objections and paragraphs of
16 to 18 of Reply on Merits are believed to be correct based on information
received by me and believed by me to be correct and true.
DEPONENT
PLA No. 43-B/2005

IN
COS. No.24/2005
titled
Allied Bank Limited
Plaintiff
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS
the Plaintiff to the Application filed by Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 under Section 10(1) of
the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 for leave to
Appear and Defend the Suit.
1.
Needs no comment.
6.

lawfully payable by the answering Defendants. No substantial question of
law or facts necessitating recording of evidence for deciding the titled suit
has been raised through the application under reply. Accordingly,
Applicants/ answering Defendants are not entitled to grant of leave to
appear and defend the titled suit that may be decreed in full.
7.
instituted or that it has been signed or instituted or filed incompetently. It is
instituted.
8.
Denied vehemently. All personal Guarantees executed by the answering

Defendants are legally enforceable and are not invalid, void or of no legal
effect and value as alleged. Said Guarantees are also not illegal or unlawful
either under section 32(2) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 or under any
other law but are valid. Answering Defendants have executed the said
guarantees in their individual capacities and cannot deny their liabilities
thereunder.
5.
Denied vehemently. All personal Guarantees executed by the answering

Defendants are legally enforceable and are not invalid, void or of no legal
effect and value as alleged. Said Guarantees are also not illegal or unlawful
either under section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872 or under any other law but
are valid.
6.
Denied vehemently. All Guarantees were signed on the dates given thereon,
were not blank and are legally enforceable and not invalid, void or of no
legal effect or without value for any alleged reason. Furthermore, by virtue
of section 18(3) of the Ordinance of 2001, said guarantees are legally
enforceable and are not invalid or void for any alleged reason.
7.
Denied vehemently. All allegations contained in para under reply being

line. Plaintiff never acted in any illegal or unlawful manner. Personal

Guarantees mentioned in para 11 of the plaint were executed by the
Defendant Nos. 2 to 4. It is denied that the Defendant No.3 did not sign the
Guarantee attached with the plaint. The Plaintiff neither misused any
document to fabricate her guarantee nor breached the trust of the Defendant
No.3 as alleged. The said guarantee is legally enforceable and the same is
not unlawful or void on any of the grounds mentioned in para under reply.
8.

line. Plaintiff has not committed any of the alleged illegal acts. Similarly,
Plaintiff has neither concealed any fact nor committed fraud, mal
administration nor made violation of any norms of banking law or practice
etc. Therefore, titled suit is not liable to be dismissed as alleged.
9.
Denied vehemently. Plaintiff has neither committed fraud, cheating, forgery

and misrepresentation etc nor its behavior is disgusting etc. Similarly,
neither Plaintiff approached this Honourable Court with un-cleaned hands
nor the plaint deserves to be dismissed as alleged. All assertions contained
in para under reply being totally wrong and baseless are specifically denied
word by word and line by line.
10.
Denied vehemently.
Titled suit has been filed within the period of
limitation prescribed under law and is not time barred as alleged. It is

merely a bald allegation without mentioning any specific instance, reason
or ground on the basis whereof the suit is alleged to be time barred.
Therefore, titled suit is not liable to be dismissed as alleged.
11.
Denied vehemently. Contents of the para under reply are denied. Answering
Defendants stood as guarantors by executing Personal Guarantees in favour
of the Plaintiff Bank in consideration of the financial facilities extended to
and availed by Defendant No. 1 from the Plaintiff Bank. The said
Guarantees are legally enforceable and are not invalid, void, discharged or
of no legal effect and value as alleged. Enforcement of the said Personal
Guarantees is o not barred by time.
12.
13.
Denied vehemently. No additional document can be placed on record of the

case.
Denied vehemently. Suit is neither mala fide etc nor through the titled suit
Reply on merit.
(1).
(2).
Needs no comment.
(3).
Needs no comment.
(4).
Contents of the para under reply are denied. Answering Defendants stood
guarantors by executing Personal Guarantees in favour of the Plaintiff Bank
as security for and in consideration of the financial facilities extended to
and availed by Defendant No. 1 from the Plaintiff Bank. The said
Guarantees are legally enforceable and are not invalid, void or of no legal
effect and value as alleged. It is denied that the Defendant No.1or the
answering Defendants had rejected terms of sanction letters dated 05-102002 or 12-09-2003. It is further submitted that on maturity of the Running
Finance, the Cash Finance and L/c limit/FADB all Defendants requested the
Plaintiff to renew the same. Copies of Resolutions dated 08.03.2002 &
30.05.2003 passed by the Directors of Defendant No. 1 for requesting the
Plaintiff for renewal of limits for the periods upto 30.06.2003 and
30.06.2004 respectively and the Sanction Advices dated 05.10.2002 &
12.09.2003 issued by the Plaintiff are attached with the plaint as Annexures
K, K /1, K /2 & K /3. As stated in paras 12 & 13 of the plaint, Defendant
No.1 availed and utilized the facilities that were approved through the said
sanction advices. Therefore, Enforcement of the said Personal Guarantees is
also not barred by time as alleged.
Further submitted and reiterated that the Personal Guarantees
mentioned in para 11 of the plaint were executed by the Defendant Nos. 2
to 4 and the said Guarantees were signed on the dates given thereon and
were not blank. It is denied that the Defendant No.3 did not sign the
Guarantee attached with the plaint. The Plaintiff neither misused any
document to fabricate her guarantee nor the same is false, forged or
concocted as alleged. The said guarantee is legally enforceable and the
same is not unlawful or void on any of the grounds mentioned in para under
reply.
(5).
Denied. Correct address of the Defendant No.5 has been given in the
heading of the plaint.
(6).

lawfully payable by the answering Defendants.
(7).
Needs no comments.
(8).
Denied vehemently. Facilities subject matters of the suit were granted to the
Defendant No. 1 inter alia on the request of the answering Defendants who
also stood guarantors for the said facilities.
(9).
Defendant No. 1 inter alia on the request of the answering Defendants who
also stood guarantors for the said facilities. All documents mentioned in
para 9 of the plaint are in the knowledge of the answering Defendants. They
executed Personal Guarantees as security for the facilities availed by the
Defendant No.1 under the said documents. Therefore, Applicants are liable
for the suit amounts.

(11). Denied vehemently. All allegations contained in para under reply being
line. Plaintiff never acted in any illegal or unlawful manner. Personal
Guarantees mentioned in para 11 of the plaint were executed by the
Defendant Nos. 2 to 4. The said guarantees are legally enforceable and the
same are not unlawful or void on any of the grounds mentioned in para
under reply. All of the aforesaid guarantees are legally enforceable and an
out right decree can be passed against the Defendants on the basis thereof
without recording any evidence:
a).
Denied vehemently. Guarantees have been furnished for the

Purchase Prices payable under the agreements, which include
mark up.
b).
Denied vehemently. No blank, undated and unfilled guarantee

or document was obtained.
c).
Denied vehemently. Neither any illegal document was

obtained nor the Plaintiff has misused any document.
d).
Denied vehemently. Plaintiff has not committed any breach of

trust of the Applicants.
(12). Contents as stated are denied word by word and line by line. All personal
Guarantees executed by the answering Defendants are legally enforceable
and are not discharged, invalid, void or of no legal effect and value as
alleged. Answering Defendants have executed the said guarantees in their
individual capacities and cannot deny their liabilities thereunder.
(14). Denied vehemently. Contents of para14 of the plaint are reiterated.
(16). Denied vehemently. Plaintiff has cause of action against the Defendants
and the plaint discloses the same.
(17).
Denied vehemently.

In view of the above facts that the answering Defendants have not raised any
through
RAJA MOHAMMED AKRAM

Senior Advocate
VERIFICATION:

DEPONENT
PLA No. 44-B/2005

IN
COS. No.24/2005
titled
Allied Bank Limited
Plaintiff
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS
the Plaintiff to the Application filed by Defendant No. 5 under Section 10(1) of the
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 for leave to Appear
and Defend the Suit.
REPLY TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS/SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS

OF LAW AND FACTS:
1.
2.
Needs no comment.
lawfully payable by the answering Defendant etc. No substantial question
of law or facts necessitating recording of evidence for deciding the titled
suit has been raised through the application under reply. Accordingly,
Applicant/ answering Defendant is not entitled to grant of leave to appear
and defend the titled suit that is liable to be decreed in full.
3.

instituted.
4.
Denied vehemently. Reconstruction of the Defendant No.5 as alleged does

not affect legality and validity of the mortgage created by the Defendant
firm.
5.
Denied vehemently. As stated above, reconstruction of the Defendant No.5

does not affect legality and validity of the mortgage created by the
Defendant firm. Even otherwise, as per own statement of the Defendant
No.5 made in para 4 of the Preliminary Objections, the person(s) who had
signed mortgage document and created mortgage on behalf of the
Defendant No.1in favour of the Plaintiff were partners of the firm when the
said mortgage was created. It is also denied that the suit the titled suit is bad
for non joinder or misjoinder of the necessary or proper parties. Therefore,
all assertions and allegations contained in para under reply being totally
wrong and baseless are specifically denied word by word and line by line.
Plaintiff has not committed any of the alleged illegal acts.
6.
Denied vehemently. Mortgage created by the Defendant No.5 is legally

enforceable and is not invalid, void or of no legal effect and value as
alleged. Power of Attorney attached with the plaint as Annexure I/2 is also
not invalid or void as it was executed by late Mian Ejaz Shaffi on behalf of
the Defendant Firm and not in his personal capacity. Memorandum of
Deposit of Title Deed was signed on behalf of the answering Defendant on
the date given thereon, the same was not blank and is legally enforceable
and not invalid for any alleged reason. Therefore, the Defendants No. 5 is
liable for the liabilities of the Defendant No.1against the Plaintiff having
secured the same by mortgaging its property with the Plaintiff. Accordingly,
plaint is not liable to be rejected.
7.
Denied vehemently. Titled suit is not time barred as alleged. It is merely a

bald allegation without mentioning any specific instance, reason or ground
on the basis whereof the suit is alleged to be time barred. Therefore, titled
suit is not liable to be dismissed as alleged.
8.
Denied vehemently. Suit is neither mala fide nor through the titled suit
9.
Denied vehemently. Plaint is not barred by any law as alleged. It is merely a

bald allegation without mentioning any provision of law under which plaint
is alleged to be barred. Similarly, plaint also discloses cause of action
against the answering Defendant.
Reply on merit.
(1).
(2).
Needs no comment.
Lahore. Under Section 9(1) of the Ordinance of 2001, a Branch Manager
(3).
Needs no comment.
(4).
Contents of the para under reply are denied. Mortgage created by the
Defendant No. 5 is legally enforceable and is not invalid, void or of no
legal effect and value as alleged. Defendant No.5 created the said mortgage
itself and its partners merely executed documents on its behalf. The said
mortgage is legally enforceable and is not invalid or void having been
lawfully created.
(5).
Denied. Correct address of the Defendant No.5 has been given in the
heading of the plaint.
(6).
Denied vehemently. Amounts mentioned in para 6 of the plaint and claimed

in the titled suit are legally and lawfully payable by the answering
Defendant etc.
(7).
Denied vehemently.
(8).
Denied vehemently.
(9).
Defendant No. 1 inter alia on the request of the Defendant No. 5 which also
mortgaged its property as security for the said facilities.
(10).
Denied vehemently. All documents mentioned in para 10 of the plaint and

attached thereto and are legally enforceable and not invalid, void or of no
legal effect or without value for any alleged reason.

(12). Contents as stated are denied word by word and line by line. Facilities
subject matters of the suit were granted to the Defendant No. 1 inter alia on
the request of the Defendant No.5, which also mortgaged its property as
security for the said facilities.
(16). Denied vehemently. Plaintiff has cause of action against all Defendants
including the answering Defendant and the plaint discloses the same.
(17).
Denied vehemently. This Honourable Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate

upon the titled suit as the cause of action against the Defendants has arisen
at Lahore.
(18). Denied vehemently. Amount claimed in the titled suit is legally and
lawfully payable by the answering Defendant etc. Accordingly, titled suit
that is liable to be decreed in full.
In view of the above facts that the answering Defendant has not raised any
out rightly against the Defendant.
through
RAJA MOHAMMED AKRAM

Senior Advocate
VERIFICATION:

DEPONENT

C.M No.______/2005
IN
C.O.S No. ___________/2005
Titled
Allied Bank Limited.
..Plaintiff/Applicant
VERSUS
M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) limited & Others
.Defendants/Respondents
APPLICATION
under Section 16 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of

Finances) Ordinance, 2001, Order 38 Rules 5, 6 & 7,
Order 40 Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC read with all other
enabling provisions of law.
That the Plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.101, 391,028.14 against
the Defendants/Respondents mentioned in the plaint, which is pending
before this Honourable Court. Defendant Nos.1 & 5 have mortgaged,
hypothecated and pledged with the Plaintiff their respective properties and
assets detailed in paragraphs 9 & 10 of the plaint and also mentioned
below:
A.
Assets mortgaged, hypothecated and pledged by Defendant No.1.
(I)
Project situated upon the land measuring 304152.16 Sq.Ft bearing

Plot No.12-A situated at New Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad
Kashmir) together with all present and future constructions,

factory, mill, machinery, fixtures and fittings etc. constructed and
installed thereon as well as all current assets, all book debts and its
undertakings both present and future.
(II)
"Pledged stocks lying at the two premises situated at Bara Dari

Road, Shahdrah and Mauza Molanwal 23 K.M Main Multan Road
and detailed in the two Stocks Reports attached as Annex- F/3 &
Annex- F/4 to the plaint.
B. Assets mortgaged by the Defendant No.5.

2.
That Defendants/Respondents having come to know of the filing of the suit,

are taking surreptitious steps to sell the mortgaged, hypothecated and
pledged properties and assets, to remove the goods/assets of the Defendant
No.1 as well as to alienate mortgaged assets of the Defendant No.1.
3.
That if the Respondents/Defendants sell the aforesaid properties, goods and

assets specified in the plaint as well as in para 1 above etc, not only the
Plaintiff will suffer an irreparable loss but also the process of law and the
decree that may be passed by this Honourable Court shall be frustrated.
4.
It is submitted that the Respondents/Defendants in violation of all their

legal, contractual and moral obligations did not repay due amount to the
Plaintiff. Presently on 30-6-2005 a sum of Rs.101, 391,028.14 is due from
the Defendants to the Plaintiff.
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may be
pleased to:
i)
make order for attachment before judgment of the properties and

assets of Defendant No.1 mentioned below:
A.
Assets mortgaged, hypothecated and pledged by Defendant No.1.
(I)
Project situated upon the land measuring 304152.16 Sq.Ft

bearing Plot No.12-A situated at New Industrial Area,
Mirpur (Azad Kashmir) together with all present and future
constructions, factory, mill, machinery, fixtures and fittings
etc. constructed and installed thereon as well as all current
assets, all book debts and its undertakings both present and
future.
(II)
"Pledged stocks lying at the two premises situated at Bara

Dari Road, Shahdrah and Mauza Molanwal 23 K.M Main
Multan Road and detailed in the two Stocks Reports
attached as Annex- F/3 & Annex- F/4 to the plaint.
B. Assets mortgaged by the Defendant No.5.

ii)
make an order restraining the Respondents from selling or disposing

of the above mortgaged, hypothecated and pledged properties and
assets of Defendant Nos.1& 5;
iii)
make an order for appointment of receiver before judgment to take

over the mortgaged properties and assets of the Defendant Nos.1& 2
and running of the factories of the Defendant No.1 as per details
given below:
Project situated upon the land measuring 304152.16 Sq.Ft bearing
Plot No.12-A situated at New Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad
Kashmir) together with all present and future constructions,
factory, mill, machinery, fixtures and fittings etc. constructed and
installed thereon as well as all current assets, all book debts and its
undertakings both present and future.
iv)
authorizing the Applicant Bank and/or the Receiver to post security

guards at the aforesaid factory premises of the Defendant No.1.
v)
to appoint Local Commissioner to make a complete inventory of all

machinery, plants, stocks and other movable and immovable assets
of Respondent No.1 and file the same in this Honourable Court.
vi)
to make an order restraining the Respondents No.2 to 12 from

selling or disposing of their personal assets and properties ;
vii)
any other order deemed fit and proper may also kindly be passed by
this Honourable Court.
APPLICANT
(Allied Bank Ltd.)
through
RAJA MOHAMMED AKRAM

Senior Advocate
2)E/Backup/Banking/ABL-Diamond-Polymer(13-15)
Syed
Mujtaba
Gillani,
Relationship
Manager,
Assets
Management
Branch,
ABL199Upper Mall, Lahore.

Dear Sir,
Subject: Filing of suits against (I) M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.)

limited & 9 Others, (II) M/s Shaffi Chemical Industries & 13 others & (III)
M/s Crescent Industrial (Gadoon) Enterprises (Pvt.) Limited & 11 others.
Please refer to the captioned suits. For the purpose of filing of the suits we require
expenses as per details below;
(I)
M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) limited & 9 Others.

i)
Court Fee.
Rs. 16,000.00
ii)
Filing and copying expenses of 12 sets.
Rs. 11,000.00
Total Rs. 27,000.00
(II)
M/s Crescent Industrial (Gadoon) Enterprises (Pvt.) Limited &

11 others.
(i)
Court Fee.
Rs. 16,000.00
(ii)
Rs. 10,500.00
Total Rs. 26,500.00

(II)
M/s Shaffi Chemical Industries & 13 others.

(i)
Court Fee.
Rs. 16,000.00
(ii)
Rs.12, 500.00
Total Rs. 28,500.00

Kindly arrange to pay the above amounts in cash.
For Raja
a)
In the sum of Rs.101,391,028.14 with all costs, charges and expenses payable
and Corporate Guarantee furnished by the Defendant Nos.2 to 4 and 9 to 11.
b)
Court.
c)
To appoint receiver(s) of the properties that were mortgaged/hypothecated/

charged/ pledged by Defendant Nos.1 & 5 with the Plaintiff Bank and detailed in
the paras- 9 & 10 of the plaint.
d)
e)
Name of the Customer:

S.N
i)
Type of Finance
_______ Finance of Rs.
ii)
iiii)
FADB
Outstanding Amount
a)Principal
Rs.
b)Markup
Rs.
Total:- Rs.
a)Principal
Rs.
b)Markup
Rs.
Total:- Rs.
a)Principal
Rs.
b) Markup
Rs
Total: Rs.
Grand Total
A.
Rs.
___________ Finance of Rs.______________.

a)
Agreement for Financing dated ________. Under the terms of the

Agreement, the Purchase Price of Rs. was payable in ________Monthly
Quarterly/Bi-annual installments commencing from________ and ending
on_______ or in lump sum on _______.
B.
b)
Promissory Note dated _______ for Rs._______.
c)
Letter of Hypothecation dated ____________.

a)
Agreement for Financing dated ________. Under the terms of the

Agreement, the Purchase Price of Rs. was payable in ________Monthly
Quarterly/Bi-annual installments commencing from________ and ending
on_______ or in lump sum on _______.
b)
Promissory Note dated _______ for Rs._______.
c)
Letter of Hypothecation dated ____________.
E
F
G d)
Letter of Pledge dated ________. Pledged stocks are lying at the two
premises situated at ______________________
H A. Mortgages & charges by the Customer.
i.
Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated_______ .
ii.
Letter of Hypothecation dated_______ .
iii.
Form X dated ________________.
iv
Certificate of Charge Registration ______________
v. Deed of Floating Charge dated_______________ .

vi.
General power of Attorney dated__________________
________________________________________________________________.

the land measuring _____________________ bearing Plot No._______ situated
at____________________________ together with all present and future
both present and future. Copies of the Sale Deed/Lease Deed dated
_________________ was deposited in original with the Plaintiff for creation of
equitable mortgage.
Mortgage by ___________
Mortgaged Property:
Documents.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Personal Guarantees.
i.
ii.
NOTE
C.O.S. No.24/2005
ABL v/s Diamond Polymer (Pvt.) Limited & Others
1.
Suit Amount.
Rs.101,391,028.14
2.
Facilities sued:
Para 6 pg 3 of Plaint
i)
ii)
iiii)
a)Principal
b)Markup
Rs. 49,985,052.69
Rs. 17,634,018.87
Total:- Rs.67,619,071.56
a) Principal
Rs. 9,393,175.00
b)Markup
Rs. 20,360,256.48
Total:- Rs. 29,753,431.48
FADB
a)Principal
Rs. 3,371,748.00
b) Markup
Rs
646,777.10
Total: Rs. 4,018,525.10
Grand Total
Rs.101,391,028.14
3. Sanction Advice
dt 9-04-2001
4.
Annex- D pg 26 34 of
plaint.
Documents
A.
Para 9 A pg 3 of Plaint.
a)
Agreement for Financing dt. 10-04-2001
Annex-E pg 35-38 of Plaint.
b)
Promissory Note dt10-04-2001
Annex-E/1pg-39-40of Plaint.
c)
Letter of Hypothecation dt. 10-04-2001
Annex-E/2pg-39-40of Plaint.
Statement of Accounts.
Principal.
Mark up.
Annex- M pg 205-753 of
Plaint.
Annex- M/1 pg754 of
Plaint.
Amounts claimed.
Rs.67,619,071.56
Para 6 pg 3 of Plaint.
Particulars under section 9(3)
para 15 A pg 8 of plaint
Para 9 B pg 3 of Plaint.
a)
Annex-F pg 43-46 of Plaint.
b)
Annex-F/1pg 47-48of Plaint.
c)
Letter of Pledge dt. 10-04-2001
d)
Stock Reports
Annex-F/2pg-49-51of Plaint.
Annex-F/3&F/4pg-49-51of Plaint.
Principal.
Annex-Npg755-806
of
Plaint.
Annex-N/1 pg 807 of Plaint.
Mark up.
Amounts claimed.
Rs. 29,753,431.48
para 15 B pg 9 of plaint
C.
FADB/Lc(sight/DA of Rs.150.0M
Para 9 C pg 3 of Plaint.
a)
Annex-G pg 55-58 of Plaint.
b)
Annex-G/1pg 59-60of Plaint.
Principal.
Annex-O-pg808-809of
Plaint.
Annex-O/1 pg 810 of Plaint.
Mark up.
Amounts claimed.
Rs. 4,018,525.10
5.
para 15 C pg 9-10 of plaint.
Mortgages & Charges.
para 10 pg-5 of Plaint.
A. Charge/ Mortgage by Defendant No.1.
para 10A pg-5 of Plaint.
Documents
Mortgaged/Charged Assets.
Annex-H H/8 pg 65-83 of Plaint.
para 10A pg-5 of Plaint.
Land measuring 304152.16 Sq.Ft bearing Plot No.12-A situated at

New Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad Kashmir) together with all
present and future constructions, factory, mill, machinery, fixtures
and fittings etc. constructed and installed thereon as well as all
current assets, all book debts and its undertakings both present and
future.
Copy of the Lease Deed dt 09-06-1996
deposited in original with the Plaintiff
for creation of equitable mortgage. AnnexH/9pg-84-97of Plaint
B. Charge/ Mortgage by Defendant No.5.
Documents
Mortgaged/Charged Assets.
para10Bpg-6of
plaint.
Annex-II/4 pg 98-121 of Plaint.
para 10 B pg-6 of Plaint.

measurement 225 sq ft per marla) in Khasra Nos. 331/237/3,
330/237/3, 333/237/3, 332/237/3, 339/237/3, 340/237/3 Khewat
No 176 & Khatooni Nos. 251, 248, 254/1, 246, 238 and 239 as per
Jamabandi for the year 1979-80 situated at Mauza Fatehpuri within
Municipal Limits of MCL, Lahore together with all present and
future constructions, fittings, installations machinery and
equipment etc.
Copies of 6 original sale deeds
Deposited for creation of
equitable mortgage.
Annex-I/5I/10 pg 122-155 of Plaint.
6 A.
I
Personal Guarantees by the
Defendant Nos.2 to 4
para11 pg 6 of plaint
Annex- J-J/2 pg 156-161 of
plaint.
6B.
Corporate Guarantees & letters

of awareness by the Defendant
Nos.6 to 9
para11 pg 6 of plaint
Annex-J/3-J/4 pg162-163 of
plaint.
7.
Renewal of above facilities.
Para 12 pg 6 of plaint
Copies of Resolutions dated 08.03.2002

& 30.05.2003 by Defendant No.1 for
renewal of limits for the periods upto
30.06.2003 and 30.06.2004.
AnnexK&K /1 pg 168 &169

of plaint
Sanction Advices for renewal

dated 05.10.2002 & 12.09.2003
Annex-K /2pg 170-180 & K

/3 pg 181-189.
8.
9.
Acknowledgments of liability &

promise to pay
Default
Paras
12&
13pg6&7
Annex-L- L/4/4pg 190-194.
paras13& 14 pg 7-8 AnnexL/6-L/9pg196-204 of plaint.
PLA No.48-B/2005 by the Defendants No.1.

1. No particulars under section 10(4) given.
1.
2006 CLD 244

HBL VS SABCOS (PVT.) LTD.
(P247)A
(PP 250, 251, 252) B, C, D, H &1
(P252) F
(252) G
2.
2005 CLD 327

NBP VS NORTHERN POLYETHYLENE LTD.
(P332) A
3.
2003 CLD 1406

BANK OF KHYBER VS SPENSER
(P1414) F
(P 1414) G
4.
2002 CLD 1170

ICP VS MOHIB TEXTILE MILLS LTD.
(PP 1177, 1179) A &D
(P 1179) C
5.
2002 CLD 1431

NBP VS EFFEF INDUSTRIES
(PP 1448, 1450) G.MJ K L&X
(P 1449) I
Preliminary Objections.
* Suit is time barred.
Para 2 pg 1 of PLA
Merely a bald allegation without mentioning any specific instance, reason or

ground on the basis whereof the suit is alleged to be time barred.
*Suit is time barred.
Para12 pgs 11 & 12 of PLA
Facilities subject matter of the suit were on revolving basis,

On maturity of the Running Finance, the Cash Finance and L/c limit/FADB all
Defendants requested the Plaintiff to renew the same. Copies of Resolutions dated
08.03.2002 & 30.05.2003 passed by the Board of Directors of Defendant No. 1

for requesting the Plaintiff for renewal of limits for the periods upto 30.06.2003
and 30.06.2004 respectively and the Sanction Advices dated 05.10.2002 &
12.09.2003 (Annex K, K /1 to plaint
Acknowledgement letters
dated 12-07-2002, 19-11-2002
and 01-02-2003
Annex-L/1 and L/2 and L/3 TO THE
plaint
*Suit is not maintainable
and bad either for mis-joinder.
of parties/causes of action
Para 3 pg 1 of PLA
Again a bald allegation without mentioning any specific instance, reason, ground
or any specific provision of law.
* Plaint not signed and verified
in accordance with the law.
Para 4 pg 1 of PLA
Again a bald allegation.

Plaint has been signed and verified strictly in accordance with law.
*This Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction
to adjudicate upon this suit.
Para 5 pg 1 of PLA
Financial facilities subject matter of the suit were disbursed and were repayable
in Lahore. Defendant No.1 is also having its Head office at Lahore. All
Defendants including the answering Defendant also work for gains at Lahore. As
stated in the plaint, the cause of action has also arisen in Lahore that is situated
within the territorial jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. Therefore, this
Honourable Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this suit.
Suit has been improperly instituted
/signed, instituted and filed incompetently. Para 10 pg 2 of PLA
*Mr. Raza Saleem Khan, who has signed
the plaint and instituted the titled suit
on behalf of the Plaintiff, is the Chief
Manager/Branch Manager of the Plaintiff's
branch at Badami Bagh, Lahore.
Annex-A/2pg 20 of Plaint.
Suit filed by Branch Manager is competent.
1. 2004 CLD 1376 Mohammad Ramzan v/s ADBP(DB LHR)(pg 1381)

B.
2. 2001CLC 158 Mohammad Ramzan v/s Citi bank (DB LHR). Para 6 pg
162( No Head Note).
Mr. Raza Saleem Khan, and Mr. Muhammad Anwar Malik

have also instituted the suit and signed/verified plain on
the basis of the Power of Attorney.
Annex-A & A/I at pg 16-19 .
Suits on the basis of Power of Attorney.

1.
2004 CLD 1334 (Lahore DB) Haji Saghir Ahmad Vs. UBL (p.1338) B. Bank
placed copies of power of attorney of the officers who instituted suit, held suit
competently instituted.
2.
2002 CLD 334 (DB. Lahore) Mohammad Nawaz Chaudri Vs. Citi Bank
(p. 336) A. Held, Power of Attorney produced on record by the Plaintiff
established that person who instituted suit was authorized to institute the suit
even if he was not a Branch Manager.
Defendant No.1 had rejected terms

of sanction letters dt 05-10-2002
& 12-09-2003.
Para 17 pg 4 of PLA
As stated in paras 12 & 13 of the plaint, Defendant No.1 availed the facilities that
were approved through the said sanction advices.
Suit is time barred.
Para12 pgs 11 & 12 of PLA
Facilities subject matter of the suit were on revolving basis,

On maturity of the Running Finance, the Cash Finance and L/c limit/FADB all
Defendants requested the Plaintiff to renew the same. Copies of Resolutions dated
08.03.2002 & 30.05.2003 passed by the Board of Directors of Defendant No. 1
for requesting the Plaintiff for renewal of limits for the periods upto 30.06.2003
and 30.06.2004 respectively and the Sanction Advices dated 05.10.2002 &
12.09.2003 (Annex K, K /1 to plaint
Acknowledgement letters
dated 12-07-2002, 19-11-2002
and 01-02-2003
Annex-L/1 and L/2 and L/3 of plaint
Documents attached with PLA admitting liability.
a.
Letter dated 26-06-2003

paras 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 & 8
Annex C pg 40-41 of PLA
Complaint regarding charging of higher mark-up.

b.
Annex E-2 pg 45 of PLA
requesting for calculation of mark-up rebate.

c.
Annex E-3 pg 46 of PLA
requesting for calculation of mark-up rebate.

d.
Annex F-2 pg 48 of PLA
para- 4
e.
Annex L-2 pg 83 & 84 of PLA
Admission of liability against the principal of Cash Finance(para 3

7 last)
Judgments that the Article 132 of the Limitation Act,1908 would Apply in cases
of the suit filed in the Banking Courts for recovery of loans/finance through
enforcement of mortgages and sale of the mortgaged properties.
Article 132 provides period of 12 years from the date when the money sued for becomes
due.
1.
PLD 1990 Lahore 111(P114) A (UBL V/s Ifthikhar & Company).
2.
1993 MLD 1211(Lahore) (pg1215 &1216) A & B (Union Bank of Middle

East V/sMy Marks Co & Others.
3.
PLD 1990 Lahore 99(pg107) D (UBL V/s Sartaj Industries).

COUNTER CLAIM OF RS.100.00 MILLION.
Pg 13 of PLA
Plaintiff never acted in any illegal or unlawful manner and it never caused
prejudice, harm, damages, injuries to the Defendants.
Plaintiff never ruined the business of the Defendants.
Defendant is not entitled to any claim of damages/compensation of Rs.

100.00 million or for any other amount as alleged.
Counter claim is not maintainable for the following reasons:

No court fee has been affixed for the counter claim,
This Honourable Court exercising its jurisdiction under the
Ordinance of 2001 has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any claim
for any alleged compensation and damages.
++++++++

Execution Petition No.____/2007

IN
COS. No. 24/2005
Allied Bank Limited [Formerly Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited], a banking
company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and having its
registered office at 8-Egerton Road/Kashmir Road, Lahore and a branch amongst
others known as Shahdra Branch situated at Main G.T. Road, Shahdara, Lahore.
.Decree holder
VERSUS
M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) limited having its Head office at Malik Bagh,
Baradari Road, Shahdara, Lahore and Registered office/Mill/Factory at Plot
No.12-A, New Industrial Area, Mirpur Azad Jammu Kashmir.
.Judgment Debtor
Application under Section 19 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of

Finances) Ordinance of 2001 read with Order 21 and Section 151 CPC
for Execution of Interim Decree dated 27-01-2006
That this Honourable Court was pleased to pass an interim Decree dated
27-11-2006 in favour of the Plaintiff/Decree Holder. As per Section 19 of the
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance of 2001 a Decree Holder
is required to file particulars of the mortgaged, hypothecated and other assets of
the Judgment Debtor as well as other particulars necessary for execution of the
above interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 for consideration of this Honourable
Court. The necessary particulars required for execution of the Interim Decree
dated 27-11-2006 are as under:
1.
Suit. C.O.S No.
24/2005.
2.
Names of the parties.
As per the titled C.O.S No.24/05.
3.
Date of interim decree.
27-11-2006 .
4.
Whether any appeal has been filed.
No.
5.
Previous application, if any, with

date and result.
Nill.
6.
Decretal Amount
Rs.50,199,692.69.
7.
Amount of costs awarded
Nill
8.
Payment or adjustment made,

if any
NIL
9.
Total amount recoverable.
Rs.50,199,692.69.
10.
Against whom to be executed
Judgment Debtor named above.
11.
Particulars of the mortgaged,

hypothecated and other assets
of the Judgment Debtor.
As per Fard Taliqa attached.
12.
Mode in which the assistance

of the court is required
a.
Through
attachment,
recovery
of
possession and sale/auction of properties

and assets of the Judgment Debtor as
specified in the Lists (Fard Taliqa)
appended
herewith
and
all
other
properties/assets which are discovered

later on,
b.
By appointment of Receiver(s) of the

properties & assets specified in the Lists
(Fard Taliqa) appended herewith.
c.
Permission by the Honourable Court to

the Decree Holder to sell the mortgaged
and
hypothecated
properties/assets
specified in the Lists (Fard Taliqa)

appended
herewith
in
the
manner
provided in section 19(3) of Financial

Institutions
(Recovery
of
Finances)
Ordinance of 2001.
It is humbly submitted that this Honourable Court was pleased to pass the
interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 in favour of the Decree Holder and against the
Judgment Debtor. However, Judgment Debtor has failed to repay the decretal
amount.
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Honourable Court may
kindly initiate and hear the case for execution of the Decree dated 27-11-2006 and
that the sum of Rs.50,199,692.69 kindly be recovered from the Judgment Debtor
on the modes specified in the para-12 above.
Decree Holder
(ABL)
through
Raja Mohammed Akram
Senior Advocate.
VERIFICATION:
It is verified on oath at ______ on this ____ day of ______ 2007 that the contents
of contained in Para 1 to 12 are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
CERTIFICATE:
As per instructions of the Applicant this is the First Execution Petition of the
interim decree dated 27-11-2006 before this Honble Court.
Advocate

FARD TALIQA
Under Order 21 Rule 12 (CPC) Read with the Section 19 of the
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances ) Ord, 2001.
Execution Petition No.____/2007

IN
COS. No.24/2005
Allied Bank Limited

Plaintiff/Decree Holder
VERSUS

Respondents
PARTICULARS OF THE MORTGAGED AND HYPOTHECATED
IMMOVABLE AND MOVABLE ASSETS OF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR
NO.1 THAT ARE TO BE ATTACHED AND SOLD FOR THE PURPOSE OF
EXECUTION OF THE INTERIM DECREE IN DATED 27-11-2006 THE
ABOVE-TITLED SUIT IS AS UNDER:
(1)
Immovable mortgaged assets belonging to the Judgment Debtor.

situated at New Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad Kashmir) together with all
constructions, factory, mill, machinery, fixtures and fittings etc constructed and
installed thereon.
(2)
Moveable hypothecated assets of the Judgment Debtor.

(i)
All current assets including raw material, work in progress,

finished goods lying at the premises mentioned in the Serial No.1
above or in transit or stored or lying any where in Pakistan, book
debts, receivables and all its undertakings both present and future.
(ii)
Motor cars and other vehicles in their names.
(iii)
Investments in the shares of other companies.
(iv)
Bank Balances in the banks accounts maintained with various

banks.
Decree Holder
through
Raja Mohammed Akram

Senior Advocate.
\
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.

C.M. No.____________2001
In
Execution Petition No. 18-B/1999
Pakistan Industrial Credit & Investment Corporation Ltd.
. Applicant/Decree-Holder
VERSUS
Mohib Fabrics Industries Limited and others

. Respondents
APPLICATION on behalf of Decree-holder (PICIC) under Section

19 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
read with Section 151 CPC and all other enabling provisions of law for
sale of the Machinery etc. of the Judgment Debtor No.1 (MFIL) by
inviting sealed Tenders/Bids.
That the titled execution petition is pending adjudication before this Honble
Court. That by the order dated 6-5-99, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to appoint
Mr. Gulzar Hussan, Advocate and Mr. Sharif Butt, Advocate, as Court-Auctioners
to sell through public auction the assets of the judgment-debtors both immovable
and movable as specified in the Fard Taleeqa attached with the titled Execution
Petition.
That the titled suit was decreed on 10-12-1998 and titled Execution Petition was
filed in March, 1999 and was fixed for hearing first time on 10-3-99 but the
Decree dated 10-12-1998 remained unsatisfied as the assets of the Judgmentdebtors have not been sold so far causing colossal loss to the Decree Holder.
3.
That the Applicant/Decree Holder has not been able to recover its decretal amount
so far. Sale of land and building of Judgment Debtor No.1 may take some time.
However, the machinery/plant etc of the Judgment Debtor No.1 financed by the
Applicant and under its exclusive charge can be sold efficaciously by the Court
Auctioneers by inviting sealed tenders as provided under Section 19 of the
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001(hereinafter
referred to as "the Ordinance of 2001"). The land and building of Judgment

Debtor No.1 may be subsequently sold by the Court auctioneers.
4.
That in case machinery/plant of Judgment Debtor No.1, specified in the Fard

Taleeqa attached with the titled Execution Petition and also specified in Mark-A
hereto, are allowed to be sold by inviting sealed tenders, the Applicant/Decree
Holder shall be able to satisfy its Decree at least in part avoiding further loss.
5.
That in view of the above facts, it would be in the interest of justice if the Court
Auctioneers are allowed to sell the machinery/plant of Judgment Debtor No.1 that
is under exclusive charge/mortgage of the Decree Holder/Applicant, through
inviting sealed tenders instead of public auction.
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that Hon'ble Court may be pleased:
(i)
to direct the Court Auctioneers to sell the machinery/plant as per Mark-A

belonging to the Judgment Debtor No.1 and exclusively hypothecated/mortgaged
with the Decree Holder, through inviting sealed Tenders/Bids as envisaged and in
the manner specified in Sub-Sections (3), (4), (5) & (6) of Section 19 of the
Ordinance of 2001 and to allow appropriation proceeds thereof towards partial
satisfaction of the Decree dated 10-12-1998;
(ii)
to grant to the Decree Holder any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and appropriate.
APPLICANT/DECREE-HOLDER
(PICIC)
through
RAJA MOHAMMAD AKRAM
Senior Advocate
SALMAN AKRAM RAJA

NOMAAN AKRAM RAJA
Advocate High Court
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF DECREE HOLDER (PICIC)

UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS (RECOVERY
OF FINANCES) ORDINANCE, 2001 READ
WITH ALL OTHER ENABLING PROVISIONS OF LAW
That the titled execution petition is pending adjudication before this Honble
Court. That by the order dated 6-5-99, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to appoint
Mr. Gulzar Hussan, Advocate and Mr. Sharif Butt, Advocate, as Court-Auctioners
to sell through public auction the assets of the judgment-debtors both immovable
and movable as specified in the Fard Taleeqa attached with the titled Execution
Petition.
2.
That the Applicant/Decree Holder has not been able to recover its decretal amount
so far. Sale of land and building of Judgment Debtor No.1 may take some time.
However, the machinery/plant etc of the Judgment Debtor No.1 financed by the
Applicant and under its exclusive charge can be sold efficaciously by the Court
Auctioneers by inviting sealed tenders as provided under Section 19 of the
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001(hereinafter
referred to as "the Ordinance of 2001"). The land and building of Judgment
Debtor No.1 may be subsequently sold by the Court auctioneers.
3.
That in case machinery/plant of Judgment Debtor No.1, specified in the Fard

Taleeqa attached with the titled Execution Petition and also specified in Mark-A
hereto, are allowed to be sold by inviting sealed tenders, the Applicant/Decree
Holder shall be able to satisfy its Decree at least in part avoiding further loss.
4.
That the Applicant earlier filed C.M. No.739-B/2001, which is still pending,
wherein permission was sought from this Honourable Court to sell the
machinery/plant of Judgment Debtor No.1 through inviting sealed tenders/bids in
accordance with law. However, no order on the said application has as yet been
passed. The matter has assumed some urgency in view of the fact that the
Applicant has located potential buyers for the purchase of the machinery,
including certain overseas parties who are present in the country for the purpose
of inspection/evaluation. If appropriate orders are not passed by this Honourable
Court, it is apprehended that an opportunity to dispose of the machinery at an
excellent price shall be missed and in this manner the interests of the Decree
Holder/Applicant shall suffer tremendously.
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that Hon'ble Court may be pleased:
(iii)
to direct the Court Auctioneers to sell the machinery/plant as per Mark-A

belonging to the Judgment Debtor No.1 and exclusively hypothecated/mortgaged
with the Decree Holder, through inviting sealed Tenders/Bids as envisaged and in
the manner specified in Sub-Sections (3), (4), (5) & (6) of Section 19 of the
Ordinance of 2001 and to allow appropriation proceeds thereof towards partial
satisfaction of the Decree dated 10-12-1998;
(iv)
to grant to the Decree Holder any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and appropriate.
Any other order deemed fit and appropriate may also be kindly passed.

C.M. No.____/2007.
In

Finances) Ordinance of 2001 read with Order 21 Rule 66 and Section
151 CPC for Fixation of the Reserved Price of the fixed assets of the
Judgment Detbor.
1.
That the titled Execution Petition is pending adjudication before this Honourable Court
and is fixed for hearing on 22-02-2007.
2.
That on the last date of hearing on 08-02-2007, the Honourable Court was pleased to
direct the Applicant/Decree Holder to file in the Honourable Court the estimated reserved
price of the fixed assets of the Judgment Debtor specified in the Fard Taliqua attached
with the titled petition.
3.
That the Decree Holder bank had got determined the value of the fixed assets of the
Judgment Debtor No.1 from M/s Engineering Pakistan International (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore
(Evaluator). That as per the Evaluation Report dated 30-06-2006 (copy attached as
Mark-A), the value of the fixed assets of the Judgment Debtor No.1 is as under:
I.
II.
III.
4.
Value of Land
Value of Building & Civil Works etc.
Value of Plant & Machinery
Total Value:
Rs. 5,311,450.00
Rs. 33,726,950.00
Rs. 95,900,217.00
Rs.134,938,617.00
That in view of the above Evaluation Report, the reserved price of the fixed assets of the
Judgment Debtor specified in the Fard Taliqa and also given below may kindly be fixed
at Rs.134,938,617.00;
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Honourable Court may kindly fix the
reserved price of the above assets of the Judgment Debtor at Rs.134,938,617.00.
Decree Holder (ABL)

through
Raja Mohammed Akram

Senior Advocate.

C.M. No.____/2007.
In

Finances) Ordinance of 2001 read with Order 21 Rule 66 and Section
151 CPC for Fixation of the Reserved Price of the fixed assets of the
Judgment Detbor.
AFFIDAVIT OF MR. Tariq Mehmood Sheikh, VP/Manager Sam Branch

Allied Bank Limited,
199-Upper Mall, Lahore.
1.
Court and is fixed for hearing on 22-02-2007.
2.
That on the last date of hearing on 08-02-2007, the Honourable Court was pleased
to direct the Applicant/Decree Holder to file in the Honourable Court the
estimated reserved price of the fixed assets of the Judgment Debtor specified in
the Fard Taliqua attached with the titled petition.
3.
That the Decree Holder bank had got determined the value of the fixed assets of
the Judgment Debtor No.1 from M/s Engineering Pakistan International (Pvt.)
Ltd., Lahore (Evaluator). That as per the Evaluation Report dated 30-06-2006
(copy attached as Mark-A), the value of the fixed assets of the Judgment Debtor
No.1 is as under:
I.
II.
III.
Value of Land
Rs.5,311,450.00
Value of Building & Civil Works etc. Rs. 33,726,950.00
Value of Plant & Machinery
Rs. 95,900,217.00
Total Value:
Rs.134,938,617.00
4.
That in view of the above Evaluation Report, the reserved price of the fixed assets
of the Judgment Debtor specified in the Fard Taliqa and also given below may
kindly be fixed at Rs.134,938,617.00;
No.12-A situated at New Industrial Area, Mirpur (Azad Kashmir) together
constructed and installed thereon.
DEPONENT
Verification:
DEPONENT
PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS/OBJECTIONS:
1.
The Application for leave to defend (PLA) filed by the Applicants completely
fails to comply with the mandatory provisions of law contained in section 10 of
the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (hereinafter
referred to as the Ordinance of 2001).
2.
PLA is not in accordance with sub-sections (3), (4) & (5) of section 10 of the
Ordinance of 2001.
3.
That as required by law substantial question of law as well as facts, which require
evidence, has to be specifically formulated and stated. This provision of law has
also not been complied with.
4.
Sub-section (6) of section 10 of the Ordinance of 2001 reproduced below lays

down that the Application for leave to defend shall be rejected if it does not
comply with the requirements of sub-section (3), (4) where applicable and (5).
(6)
An application for leave to defend which does not comply with the
requirements of sub-section (3), (4) where applicable and (5) shall be
rejected, unless the defendant discloses therein sufficient cause for his
inability to comply with any such requirement.
Since the Application for leave to defend has not complied with the mandatory
requirements of Sub-sections 3, 4 and 5, the same is liable to be rejected.
2.
Execution Petition No.4-B/2007 titled ABL V/s M/s Diamond Polymers

(Pvt.) limited.
ZAFAR, IQBAL & RAJA

ADVOCATES AND LEGAL CONSULTANTS
33-C Main Gulberg

Lahore, Pakistan
Tel.: (042) 575-0074 and (042) 575-0208
Fax: (042) 575-0175
E-mail: zir@zirlaw.com
Walid Iqbal
Salman Akram Raja
Mr. Nasir Ayub,

RGM, CSIBL,
25 January 2007
8th Floor,
Crescent Standard Tower,
10-B, Block E2,
Gulberg III, Lahore.
Subject:
Suit titled WAPDA Versus CSIBL
DEAR SIR,
This has reference to the captioned suit. The case was fixed today for hearing
before Mr. Justice Hamid Ali Shah of the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore. The
Honourable Lahore High Court was pleased to issue notice to the Plaintiff WAPDA for
the Application of CSIBL for withdrawal of restraining order dated 21-09-2006 whereby
the Honourable Lahore High Court was pleased to pass an order temporarily restraining
CSIBL from transferring and disposing off its assets. Two applications filed by the
Plaintiff including application for order restraining CSIBL from transferring and
disposing off its assets were also fixed today. Now the case is fixed for arguments on 132-2007.
Thanking you and assuring you of our full cooperation at all times.
Yours truly,
Zafar, Iqbal & Raja

C.M. No.____/2007.
In

(Recovery of Finances) Ordinance of 2001 read with Sections 51 & 60,
Order 21 Rule 54 and Section 151 CPC for attachment of the fixed
assets of the Judgment Detbor.
1.
2.
That the Decree dated 27-11-2006 is being executed by this Honourable Court
through sale/auction inter alia of the fixed assets of the Judgment Debtor as
3.
That if the Respondent/Judgment Debtor sells its aforesaid fixed assets that are
mortgaged with the Decree Holder, not only the Decree Holder will suffer an
irreparable loss but also the process of law and the Decree dated 27-11-2006
would be frustrated.
be pleased to make an order for attachment of the fixed assets of the Judgment
Debtor that are mortgaged with the Decree Holder and mentioned in para 2 above.
Decree Holder (ABL)

through
RAJA MOHAMMED AKRAM

Senior Advocate
MIRZA MUZAFFAR AHMAD

Advocate High Court


(Recovery of Finances) Ordinance of 2001 read with Sections 51 & 60,
Order 21 Rule 54 and Section 151 CPC for attachment of the fixed
assets of the Judgment Detbor.
AFFIDAVIT OF Mr. Tariq Mehmood Sheikh, VP/Manager Sam Branch

Allied Bank Limited, 199-Upper Mall, Lahore.
1.
2.
That the Decree dated 27-11-2006 is being executed by this Honourable Court
through sale/auction inter alia of the fixed assets of the Judgment Debtor as
3.
That if the Respondent/Judgment Debtor sells its aforesaid fixed assets that are
mortgaged with the Decree Holder, not only the Decree Holder will suffer an
irreparable loss but also the process of law and the Decree dated 27-11-2006
would be frustrated.
DEPONENT
Verification:
DEPONENT
Objection Petition No. ___/2008

In
In
COS. No.24/2005
ABL V/s M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) limited.
Reply by the Decree Holder to the Objection Petition filed by the Judgment
Debtor under section 46, Order 21 Rule 66 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908
read with all other enabling provision of law.
1.
Needs no comments.
2.
Denied vehemently. Denied that due to mere filing of the First Appeal No.
88/2007 against the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 and issuance of
notices thereof by the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore to the Decree
Holder, proceedings in the titled Execution Petition are liable to be stayed
till disposal of the aforesaid RFA. It may be noted that the Honourable
Lahore High Court, Lahore hearing the aforesaid RFA No. 88/2007 has
neither suspended operation of the aforesaid Interim Decree dated 27-112006 nor granted any stay against the execution of the said Interim Decree
dated 27-11-2006. Therefore, proceedings in the titled Execution Petition
are not liable to be stayed by this Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore.
3.
Denied vehemently. Denied that this Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to

auction the property that is the subject matter of the titled Execution
Petition due to the fact that the said property is situated in Mirpur Azad
Jammu & Kashmir. Denied that the said property does not fall within the
jurisdiction of this Honourable Court as alleged. The Judgment Debtor had
voluntarily put in its appearance before this Honourable Court and
contested the titled suit on merits. Therefore, under the law the Judgment
Debtor cannot be allowed to turn back and deny jurisdiction of this
Honourable Court to execute the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006. It is

submitted that even through the aforesaid First Appeal No. 88/2007 legality
of the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 has not been assailed on the alleged
ground that the Honourable Single Bench of this Honourable Court lacked
territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the titled suit or to pass the said
Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006. Denied that the Schedule of auction filed
by the Court auctioneers in this Honourable Court is either nullity in the
eyes of the law or it does not fulfill any of the mandatory requirements of
Order 21 Rule 66 of CPC. Denied that in the said Schedule of auction, the
exact description of property to be sold has not been given either
deliberately or with mala fide intentions on the part of the Decree Holder as
alleged. Not only the complete and correct description of the said property
but also all other information/details as per the requirements of Order 21
Rule 66 of CPC have been given in the said Schedule of auction.
4.
Denied vehemently. Denied that the property that is the subject matter
of the titled Execution Petition cannot be sold till disposal of the
applications for leave to defend the suits filed by the Judgment Debtor
and other Defendants (PLAs). It is submitted that the titled Execution
Petition has been filed for execution of the Interim Decree dated 27-112006 passed by this Honourable Court on the basis of admission made by
the Judgment Debtor No.1 in its PLA No.42-B/2006. It is submitted that as
per section 11(2) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances)
Ordinance of 2001 (the Ordinance), an interim decree, for all purposes
including appeal and execution, is a decree under the Ordinance.
Accordingly, law permits this Honourable Court to make sale of the
property (admittedly mortgaged with the Decree Holder), in execution of
the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006. Therefore, it is denied that the sale of
the property that is the subject matter by this Honourable Court is being
made without judicially deciding the case. Denied that the sale of the said
property by this Honourable Court without deciding PLAs filed by the
Applicant/Judgment Debtor and other Defendants would cause any
injustice to the Applicant/Judgment Debtor as alleged.
5.
Denied vehemently. Denied that it is in the best interests of justice, equity

or fair play to stay the proceedings in the titled Execution Petition till final
disposal of RFA No. 88/2007.
In view of the above facts and law, it is humbly prayed that the
petition under reply may kindly be dismissed with special costs.
Any further relief deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case may also kindly be granted to the Decree Holder.
Decree Holder (ABL).

through
RAJA MOHAMMED AKRAM

Senior Advocate
SALMAN AKRAM RAJA
Advocate High Court
M.A.(Cantab)
Supreme Court.
LL.M(London)
LL.M
(Harvard)
Advocate

In
In
COS. No.24/2005
AFFIDAVIT OF:
Mr. Tariq Mehmood Sheikh, VP/Manager Sam Branch,


1.
Needs no comments.
2.
88/2007 against the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 and issuance of notices
thereof by the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore to the Decree Holder,
proceedings in the titled Execution Petition are liable to be stayed till disposal of
the aforesaid RFA. It may be noted that the Honourable Lahore High Court,
Lahore hearing the aforesaid RFA No.88/2007 has neither suspended operation of
the aforesaid Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 nor granted any stay against the
execution of the said Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006. Therefore, proceedings in
the titled Execution Petition are not liable to be stayed by this Honourable Lahore
High Court, Lahore.
Denied vehemently. Denied that this Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to
auction the property that is the subject matter of the titled Execution Petition due
to the fact that the said property is situated in Mirpur Azad Jammu & Kashmir.
Denied that the said property does not fall within the jurisdiction of this
Honourable Court as alleged. The Judgment Debtor had voluntarily put in its
appearance before this Honourable Court and contested the titled suit on merits.
Therefore, under the law the Judgment Debtor cannot be allowed to turn back and
deny jurisdiction of this Honourable Court to execute the Interim Decree dated
27-11-2006. It is submitted that even through the aforesaid First Appeal No.
88/2007 legality of the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 has not been assailed on
the alleged ground that the Honourable Single Bench of this Honourable Court
lacked territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the titled suit or to pass the said
Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006. Denied that the Schedule of auction filed by
the Court auctioneers in this Honourable Court is either nullity in the eyes of the
law or it does not fulfill any of the mandatory requirements of Order 21 Rule 66
of CPC. Denied that in the said Schedule of auction, the exact description of
property to be sold has not been given either deliberately or with mala fide
intentions on the part of the Decree Holder as alleged. Not only the complete and
correct description of the said property but also all other information/details as per
3.
4.
5.
the requirements of Order 21 Rule 66 of CPC have been given in the said
Schedule of auction.
Denied vehemently. Denied that the property that is the subject matter of the titled
Execution Petition cannot be sold till disposal of the applications for leave to
defend the suits filed by the Judgment Debtor and other Defendants (PLAs). It is
submitted that the titled Execution Petition has been filed for execution of the
Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 passed by this Honourable Court on the basis of
admission made by the Judgment Debtor No.1 in its PLA No.42-B/2006. It is
submitted that as per section 11(2) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of
Finances) Ordinance of 2001 (the Ordinance), an interim decree, for all
purposes including appeal and execution, is a decree under the Ordinance.
Accordingly, law permits this Honourable Court to make sale of the property
(admittedly mortgaged with the Decree Holder), in execution of the Interim
Decree dated 27-11-2006. Therefore, it is denied that the sale of the property that
is the subject matter by this Honourable Court is being made without judicially
deciding the case. Denied that the sale of the said property by this Honourable
Court without deciding PLAs filed by the Applicant/Judgment Debtor and other
Defendants would cause any injustice to the Applicant/Judgment Debtor as
alleged.
Denied vehemently. Denied that it is in the best interests of justice, equity or fair
play to stay the proceedings in the titled Execution Petition till final disposal of
RFA No. 88/2007.
DEPONENT
Verification:
Verified on oath at ________ on this_______ day of _______ 2008 that the contents of the above
affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that nothing has been concealed
therefrom.
DEPONENT

In
In
COS. No.24/2005
AFFIDAVIT OF:
Mr. Tariq Mehmood Sheikh,VP/Manager Sam Branch,

I, the above-named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that

the contents of the accompanying reply to the Objection Petition are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and that nothing has been
concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
Verification:
Verified on oath at ________ on this_______ day of _____________, 2008 that
the contents of the above affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and
belief and that nothing has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
Mr. Tariq Mehmood Sheikh,

VP/Manager Sam Branch,
199-Upper Mall, Lahore.
RAJA MOHAMMED AKRAM
Senior Advocate
It is submitted that even through the aforesaid First Appeal No. 88/2007 legality of
the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 has not been assailed on the alleged ground
that the Honourable Single Bench of this Honourable Court lacked territorial
jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the titled suit or pass the said Interim Decree dated
27-11-2006.

In
In
COS. No.24/2005
AFFIDAVIT OF:


1.
Needs no comments.
2.
Denied vehemently. Denied that due to mere filing of the First Appeal No. 88/2007
against the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 and issuance of notices thereof by the
Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore to the Decree Holder, proceedings in the titled
Execution Petition are liable to be stayed till disposal of the aforesaid RFA. It may be
noted that the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore hearing the aforesaid RFA
No.88/2007 has neither suspended operation of the aforesaid Interim Decree dated 27-112006 nor granted any stay against the execution of the said Interim Decree dated 27-112006. Therefore, proceedings in the titled Execution Petition are not liable to be stayed by
this Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore.
3.
Denied vehemently. Denied that this Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to auction the
property that is the subject matter of the titled Execution Petition due to the fact that the
said property is situated in Mirpur Azad Jammu & Kashmir. Denied that the said property
does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court as alleged. The Judgment
Debtor had voluntarily put in its appearance before this Honourable Court and contested
the titled suit on merits. Therefore, under the law the Judgment Debtor cannot be allowed
to turn back and deny jurisdiction of this Honourable Court to execute the Interim Decree
dated 27-11-2006. It is submitted that even through the aforesaid First Appeal No.
88/2007 legality of the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 has not been assailed on the
alleged ground that the Honourable Single Bench of this Honourable Court
Before the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore.
COS. No.24/2005.
ABL V/s M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) limited & Others.
Proposed issues on behalf of the Plaintiff Bank.
1.
Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for? (OPP).
2.
Relief.
Plaintiff (ABL)
through
SALMAN AKRAM RAJA
M.A.(Cantab)
LL.M
Supreme Court.
LL.M(London)
(Harvard)
Advocate

C.M. No.____/2008.
In

(Recovery of Finances) Ordinance of 2001 read with Section 51 , Order
1.
Court.
2.
3.

4.
9.
10.
xiii.
xiv.

xv.

Decree Holder (ABL)

through
Advocate High Court
Supreme Court.
SALMAN AKRAM RAJA

LL.M
(Harvard).
Advocate

C.M. No.____/2008.
In

(Recovery of Finances) Ordinance of 2001 read with Section 51 , Order
AFFIDAVIT OF:

ABL, 6th Floor, Salar Centre, near Civic Centre, Barkat

1.
2.
Court.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DEPONENT
Verification:
Verified on oath at ________ on this_______ day of _____________, 2008 that the
contents of the above affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that
nothing has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
RFA No. 88/2007 titled M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) limited v/s ABL.
1.
Needs no comments.
2.
88/2007 against the Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006 and issuance of
notices thereof by the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore to the Decree
Holder, proceedings in the titled Execution Petition are liable to be stayed
till disposal of the aforesaid RFA. It may be noted that the Honourable
Lahore High Court, Lahore hearing the aforesaid RFA No. 88/2007 has
neither suspended operation of the aforesaid Interim Decree dated 27-112006 nor granted any stay against the execution of the said Interim Decree
dated 27-11-2006. Therefore, proceedings in the titled Execution Petition
are not liable to be stayed by this Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore.
RAJA MOHAMMED AKRAM & CO.

ADVOCATES AND LEGAL CONSULTANTS
33-C Main Gulberg
Lahore, Pakistan
Tel.: (042) 575-0074 and (042) 575-0208
Fax: (042) 575-0175
SALMAN AKRAM RAJA
NOMAAN AKRAM RAJA
M.A.(Cantab) LL.M (London)

LL.M (Harvard)
LL.B (Hons) London

Barrister-at-Law, Advocate
Advocate Supreme Court
Mis. Kubra Gillani,

Litigation Officer,
6th Floor, Salar Centre,
Near Civic Centre,
Barkat Market,
New Garden Town, Lahore.
Subject:
13 May, 2008
RFA No. 88/2007 titled M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) limited v/s ABL.
RFA No. 89/2007 titled Shafi Chemicals Industries Ltd v/s ABL.
Dear sir,
It may be recalled that the titled appeals, having been withdrawn, were disposed
of on 06-05-2008 by the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore. You are requested to
pay us Rs.1500.00 being expenses incurred by us in connection with conducting and
withdrawal of the above appeals. Above amount may kindly be paid in cash.
Yours truly,
for
Raja Mohammed Akram & Company.
To
Mis. Kubra Gillani, Litigation Officer ABL,
6th Floor, Salar Centre,
Near Civic Centre, Barkat Market,
New Garden Town, Lahore.
From.
RAJA MOHAMMED AKRAM & CO.
Advocates And Legal Consultants
33-C Main Gulberg Lahore.
DEPONENT
Verification:
DEPONENT
C.O.S No. 18/2005

Allied Bank Limited
.Plaintiff/Applicant
VERSUS
M/s Diamond Industries Limited and Others.
..Defendants/Respondents
Application by the Plaintiff under Section 10 (11) of the Financial Institutions

(Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001(Ordinance of 2001) and Section 151
CPC read with all other enabling provisions of law for passing of Decree.
That the titled suit having been filed for recovery of Rs.253,652,224.00 is pending
adjudication before this Honourable Court.
That by the Order dated 17-01-2007, this Honourable Court was pleased to
grant to the Defendants/Respondents leave to defend the titled suit subject to
the deposit of Rs.78.6865 million with the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this
Honourable Court within ninety (90) days of passing of the aforesaid Order.
3.
That the aforesaid period of ninety (90) days expired on 17-04-2007.

However, Defendants/Respondents have failed to fulfill the aforesaid
condition of deposit of Rs.78.6865 million attached to the grant of leave to
defend the titled suit.
4.
That due to the non-compliance with and violation of the Order dated 17-01-2007
passed by this Honourable Court, judgment and decree are liable to be passed
against the Defendants/Respondents.
In view of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that judgment and decree may kindly be passed under section 10 (11) of
the Ordinance of 2001 against the Defendants and in favour of the Plaintiff in the manner prayed for in the plaint.
Any other order deemed fit and proper may also kindly be passed by this Honourable Court.
Plaintiff/Applicant (ABL)
through
RAJA MOHAMMED AKRAM

Senior Advocate Supreme Court.
SALMAN AKRAM RAJA

M.A.(CANTAB.) LL.M (London)
LL.M (Harvard)
C.O.S.No.18/2005 titled Allied Bank Limited V/s M/s Diamond Industries Limited Etc
which was decreed by this Honourable Court on 12-10-2007
REF: SAM-BR/KG/08/
October 16, 2008
Mr. Raja Muhammad Akram
Advocate Supreme Court,
33- C Main Gulberg,
Lahore.
Dear Sir,
C.O.S. No.24 /2005 titled ABL vs. Diamond Polymer etc and
C.O.S. No.25/2005 titled ABL vs. Shafi Chemical and others
This is with reference to titled cases and your letter dated 13.10.2008 whereby
list of witnesses was required to be filed in court for evidence. Please note that
the names of bank officials who are proposed witnesses in both above
mentioned cases.
1. Muhammad Saleem Raza (Chief Manager, ABL, Shahdra Branch, Lahore
now retired) R/o 104-Main Bazar Shahdra Town Lahore.
2. Muhammad Anwar Malik (Officer, ABL, Shahdra Branch, now retired) R/o
Mohallah Muslim Pura, Bara Adda Larian, Sharqpur Sharif, District,
Sheikhupura.
3. Ijaz Bashir Bhatti (Regional Head, CRBG, ABL, Regional office, Gujrat)
4. Mian Asif Mehmood (Manager ABL, Azam Cloth Market, Lahore)
5. Syed Asad Raza Naqvi (Officer Allied Bank Limited Gulshan -e- Ravi
Branch Lahore)
6. Syed Mujtaba Gillani (Wing Head, Special Vigilance Cell ABL, 6 th floor
Salar Centre, Barkat Market Garden Town Lahore)
7. Mian Muhammad Rasheed (Present Area Manager ABL, SAM Branch, 6 th
floor Salar Centre, Barkat Market Garden Town Lahore)
8. Nawaz Ali Malik (Present Manager ABL, Shahdra Branch Lahore)
9. Faseh Siddiqui ( Manager RC&RR, ABL, Karachi)
10.Shaukat Ali Larik (Retired from ABL now,
in My Bank, Head
Compliance, Karachi)
We inform you that above mentioned officers, who signed the plaint, executed
the documents, issued BFL, witnessed the charged documents, statements and
financial documents etc.
Yours faithfully,
Kubra Gilani
Law Officer
Abdul Shakoor Bhatti

Relationship Manager
Execution Petition No.4-B/2007 titled Allied Bank Limited V/s M/s Diamond Polymers
(Pvt.) limited. Interim Decree dated 27-11-2006
Sr.
No.
Documents
Date
Annex
Page
Document
available or
not
Cort Fee for Rs.15000.00
28.09.2005
A-B
Suit for recovery
28.09.2005
I-11
Form Fard Pata
28.09.2005
I2
Form under order 7 Rule 14
28.09.2005
I4
Form under order 13 Rule 1 CPC
28.09.2005
14-15
A&A/1
A/2
B
B/1
C
16-19
20
21-23
24
25
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
N.A
N.A
N.A
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Power of Attorneys of Authorized Officer

Appoint letter
Copies of the resolution
Account opening form
Certificate of Incorporation of the Plaintiff
Company
Sanction Advice
Agreement for Financing (CF)
Promissory note
(CF)
Letter of Hypothecation
Agreement for Financing
Promissory note
Letter of Pledge
Stock Reports
Promissory Note
Letter No.DO/DPOL-ABL/04-03/2004
10.04.2001
10.04.2001
22.01.2004
D
E
E/1
E/2
F
F/1
F/2
F/3&F/4
G
G/1
G/2
26-34
35-38
39-40
41-42
43-46
47-48
49-51
52-54
55-58
59-60
63
16
Bill of Exchange
30.03.2004
G/3
62-63
17
Letter No.DPOL/4/4
22.04.2004
G/4
64
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Memorandum of Deposit of Litle Deeds

From X
Certificate of Charge Registeration
From X
Memo of Deposit of Title Deed
From XVI
Certificate of Charge Registration
General Power of Attorney
Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed
Mortgage Deed
Naqal Register Haqdaran Zamin
Letter of Continuity of Mortgage
Sale Deeds ( 6 in number)
Personal Guarantees
Letter of Awareness
Copy of Resolution
Copy of Resolution
Sanction Advice
Sanction Advice
Letter from DIL
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
TO BE
CHECKED
TO BE
CHECKED
TO BE
CHECKED
AVAILABLE
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
N.A
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
N.A
N.A
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
N.A
1
2
3
4
22.05.1996
29.05.1996
21.05.1996
09.04.2001
10.04.2001
10.04.2001
10.04.2001
10.04.2001
10.04.2001
10.04.2001
26.08.1999
28.08.1999
19.01.1999
09.04.1996
24.01.2002
24.01.2002
24.01.2002
26.01.2002
07.08.2000
16.08.2002
25.04.2003
20.03.1982
08.03.2002
30.05.2003
05.10.2002
12.09.2003
12.07.2002
B
H/I
H/I
H/2005
G/9
H/4
H/5
H/6
H/7
H/8, H/9
I
I/I
I/2
I/3
I/4
I/% to I/10
J to J/2
J/3 & J/4
K
K/I
K/2
K/3
L/1
65
66-68
66-68
76
102
75
26-78
79
80
81-97
98-99
100-108
109-114
115-120
121
122-155
156-161
162-167
168
169
170-180
181-189
190
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Letter from DIL

Letter from DIL
Letter from DIL
Letter from DIL
Letter from ABL
Letter from ABL
Letter from DIL
Letter from ABL
Statement of Accounts
Stay application with affidavit
Vakalatnama
19.11.2002
01.02.2003
08.02.2003
20.02.2003
18.09.2003
25.09.2003
27.09.2003
16.10.2003
L/1
L/3
L/4
L/5
L/6
L/7
L/8
L/9
M to M/1
N to N/1
O to O/1
191-192
193
194
195
196
197-198
199-200
201-204
205-754
755-807
808-810
811-816
817
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE

C.M. No.______ -B/2009

In
COS. No.24/2005
Allied Bank Limited V/s M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited & others.
(Application by the Plaintiff Allied Bank Limited under sections 7 of the Financial
Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance of 2001 (the Ordinance of 2001)
read with section 151 of CPC and all others enabling provisions of law for placing
original documents on the record of the titled case.
2.
That the proceedings for recording of the evidence of the Plaintiff are fixed
on 21-03-2009 before the Learned Local Commissioner Mr. Justice (Retd)
Karamat Nazir Bhindari.
3.
That vide order dated 7-03-2009, the Learned Local Commissioner Mr.
Justice (Retd) Karamat Nazir Bhindari was pleased to direct the Plaintiff to
place on the record of the titled case the original documents available with
the Plaintiff. Plaintiff also desires to bring on the record of the titled suit a
Notice issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant No.1 to admit documents
under Order 12 Rule2 & 3 CPC and Article 76 & 77 of the Qanun-eShahadat Order, 1984.
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the following documents may kindly be
ordered to be placed on the record of the titled suit:
1.
Sanction Advice dated 9-4-2001 (Original).
2.
Agreement for Financing dated 10-04-2001 for Running Finance of Rs.50.0 Million (Original).
3.
Promissory Note dated 10-04-2001 for Running Finance of Rs.50.0 Million (Original).
4.
Letter of Hypothecation dated 10-04-2001 for Running Finance of Rs.50.0 Million (Original).
5.
Agreement for Financing dated 10-04-2001 for Cash Finance of Rs.100.0 Million (Original).
6.
Promissory Note dated 10-04-2001 for Cash Finance of Rs.100.0 Million (Original).
7.
Letter of Pledge dated 10-04-2001 for Cash Finance of Rs.100.0 Million (Original).
8.
Agreement for Financing dated 10-04-2001 for L/C(sight/ DA) of Rs.150 Million (Original).
9.
Promissory Note dated 10-04-2001 for L/C(sight/ DA) of Rs.150 Million (Original).
10.
Letter No.DO/DPOL-ABL/04-03/2004 dated 22-04-2004 from M/s Diamond

Polymers (Pvt.) Limited (Original).
11.
Accepted Bill of Exchange for US$ 214,130.00 dated 30-03-2004 (Original).
12.
Letter No.DPOL/4/4 dated 22-04-2004 from M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.)

Limited (Original).
13.
Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds (Original).
14.
Deed of Floating Charge dated 24.01.2002 (Original).
15.
Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed dated 24.01.2002 (Original).
16.
Letter of Hypothecation dated 24.01.2002 (Original).
17.
Certificate of Charge Registration dated 26.01.2002 (Original).
18.
General Power of Attorney dated 07-08-2000 (Original).
19.
Sanction Advice dated 05.10.2002 (Original).
20.
21.
Letter dated 27-09-2003 from M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited (Original).
22.
Copy of the Notice to admit documents under 0rder 12 Rule2 & 3 CPC and
Article 76 & 77 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.
Any other order deemed fit and appropriate may also be kindly passed.
APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF
(ABL)
through

Advocate High Court
In re
COS. No.24/2005
Allied Bank Limited V/s M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited & others.
To
1.
M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited,

Malik Bagh, Baradari Road, Shahdara, Lahore.
2.
Mr. Khurrum Saeed, Advocate,

Supreme Court of Pakistan,
252-C, Wazir Ali Road,
Upper Mall, Lahore.
Notice to admit documents under 0rder 12 Rule2 & 3 CPC and Article 76 &
77 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984).
Take notice that the Plaintiff in this suit proposes to adduce in evidence the
several documents hereunder specified and that the same may be inspected by the
Defendant No.1, his pleader or agent from the record of the case file in the
captioned suit. Defendant is hereby required, within forty-eight hours from receipt
of this notice to admit that such of the said documents as are specified to be
originals were respectively written, signed or executed as they purport
respectively to have been; that such as are specified as copies are true copies; and
such documents as are stated to have been executed, furnished, served, sent or
delivered were so executed, furnished served, sent or delivered were so executed,
furnished, served, sent or delivered were so served, sent or delivered, respectively,
saving all just exceptions to the admissibility of all such documents as evidence in
this suit.
It is further conveyed that in respect of such documents of which only copies are
available with the Plaintiff (as indicated in the list below), it is the Plaintiffs
position that the originals of such documents are in the possession of M/s
Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited. This notice may therefore also be treated as a
notice in terms of section 77 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 to produce the
documents of which only copies are available with the Plaintiff (as per the list
below):
1.
Copy of the Resolution dated 22.05.1996 passed by the Board of Directors of M/s
Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited.
2.
Copy of Certificate of Incorporation of M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited.
3.
Agreement for Financing dated 10-04-2001 for Running Finance of Rs.50.0 Million (Original).
5.
Promissory Note dated 10-04-2001 for Running Finance of Rs.50.0 Million (Original).
Letter of Hypothecation dated 10-04-2001 for Running Finance of Rs.50.0 Million (Original).
Agreement for Financing dated 10-04-2001 for Cash Finance of Rs.100.0 Million (Original).
Promissory Note dated 10-04-2001 for Cash Finance of Rs.100.0 Million (Original).
Letter of Pledge dated 10-04-2001 for Cash Finance of Rs.100.0 Million (Original).
10
Copies of two Stocks Reports of the pledged stocks. In accordance with the Order dated 26-042006 passed by the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore, M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.)
Limited took delivery of the pledged stock from the Plaintiff.
11
Agreement for Financing dated 10-04-2001 for L/C(sight/ DA) of Rs.150 Million (Original).
12
Promissory Note dated 10-04-2001 for L/C(sight/ DA) of Rs.150 Million (Original).
13
Letter No.DO/DPOL-ABL/04-03/2004 dated 22-04-2004 from M/s Diamond

Polymers (Pvt.) Limited (Original).
14
Accepted Bill of Exchange for US$ 214,130.00 dated 30-03-2004 (Original).
15
Letter No.DPOL/4/4 dated 22-04-2004 from M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.)

Limited (Original).
16
Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds (Original).
17
Letter of Hypothecation dated 26.08.1999 from M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.)

Limited (Copy).
18
Form X dated 28.08.1999 (Copy).
19
Certificate of Charge Registration dated 01.09.1999 (Copy).
20
Deed of Floating Charge dated 24.01.2002 (Original).
21
Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed dated 24.01.2002 (Original).
22
Letter of Hypothecation dated 24.01.2002 (Original).
23
Form XVI dated 24.01.2002 (Copy).
24
Certificate of Charge Registration dated 26.01.2002 (Original).
25
General Power of Attorney dated 07-08-2000 (Original).
26.
Resolution dated 08.03.2002 passed by its Board of Directors of M/s Diamond

Polymers (Pvt.) Limited(Copy).
27.
Sanction Advice dated 05.10.2002 (Original).
28
Resolution dated 30-05-2003 passed by its Board of Directors of M/s Diamond

Polymers (Pvt.) Limited(Copy).
29.
30.
Letter dated 12-07-2002 from M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited (Copy).
31.
Letter 19-11-2002 from M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited (Copy).
32
33
34
35
Letter dated 18-09-2003 from Plaintiff (Copy).
36
37
Letter dated 27-09-2003 from M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited (Original).
38
On behalf of Plaintiff
Advocate High Court
33-C Main Gulberg, Lahore.
Sr.
No.
Documents
Date
Annex
Page
Document
available or
not
Cort Fee for Rs.15000.00
28.09.2005
A-B
Suit for recovery
28.09.2005
I-11
Form Fard Pata
28.09.2005
I2
Form under order 7 Rule 14
28.09.2005
I4
Form under order 13 Rule 1 CPC
28.09.2005
14-15
A&A/1
A/2
B
B/1
C
16-19
20
21-23
24
25
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
N.A
N.A
N.A
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Power of Attorneys of Authorized Officer

Appoint letter
Copies of the resolution
Account opening form
Certificate of Incorporation of the Plaintiff
Company
Sanction Advice
Agreement for Financing (CF)
Promissory note
(CF)
Promissory note
Letter of Pledge
Stock Reports
Promissory Note
Letter No.DO/DPOL-ABL/04-03/2004
10.04.2001
10.04.2001
22.01.2004
D
E
E/1
E/2
F
F/1
F/2
F/3&F/4
G
G/1
G/2
26-34
35-38
39-40
41-42
43-46
47-48
49-51
52-54
55-58
59-60
63
16
Bill of Exchange
30.03.2004
G/3
62-63
17
Letter No.DPOL/4/4
22.04.2004
G/4
64
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Memorandum of Deposit of Litle Deeds

From X
Certificate of Charge Registeration
From X
Memo of Deposit of Title Deed
From XVI
Certificate of Charge Registration
Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed
Mortgage Deed
Naqal Register Haqdaran Zamin
Letter of Continuity of Mortgage
Sale Deeds ( 6 in number)
Personal Guarantees
Letter of Awareness
Copy of Resolution
Copy of Resolution
Sanction Advice
Sanction Advice
Letter from DIL
Letter from DIL
Letter from DIL
Letter from DIL
Letter from DIL
Letter from ABL
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
TO BE
CHECKED
TO BE
CHECKED
TO BE
CHECKED
AVAILABLE
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
N.A
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
N.A
N.A
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
1
2
3
4
22.05.1996
29.05.1996
21.05.1996
09.04.2001
10.04.2001
10.04.2001
10.04.2001
10.04.2001
10.04.2001
10.04.2001
26.08.1999
28.08.1999
19.01.1999
09.04.1996
24.01.2002
24.01.2002
24.01.2002
26.01.2002
07.08.2000
16.08.2002
25.04.2003
20.03.1982
08.03.2002
30.05.2003
05.10.2002
12.09.2003
12.07.2002
19.11.2002
01.02.2003
08.02.2003
20.02.2003
18.09.2003
B
H/I
H/I
H/2005
G/9
H/4
H/5
H/6
H/7
H/8, H/9
I
I/I
I/2
I/3
I/4
I/% to I/10
J to J/2
J/3 & J/4
K
K/I
K/2
K/3
L/1
L/1
L/3
L/4
L/5
L/6
65
66-68
66-68
76
102
75
26-78
79
80
81-97
98-99
100-108
109-114
115-120
121
122-155
156-161
162-167
168
169
170-180
181-189
190
191-192
193
194
195
196
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Letter from ABL

Letter from DIL
Letter from ABL
Stay application with affidavit
Vakalatnama
25.09.2003
27.09.2003
16.10.2003
L/7
L/8
L/9
M to M/1
N to N/1
O to O/1
197-198
199-200
201-204
205-754
755-807
808-810
811-816
817
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
To
M/s Diamond Polymers (Pvt.) Limited,
Malik Bagh, Baradari Road, Shahdara, Lahore.
Advocate High Court

Mr. Khurrum Saeed, Advocate,
Supreme Court of Pakistan,
252-C, Wazir Ali Road,
Upper Mall, Lahore.
Advocate High Court
PLA No.42-B/2005 by the Defendant No.1, PLA No.43-B/2005 by the

Defendants No.2 to 4, PLA No.44-B/2005 by the Defendant No.5 and PLA
No.45-B/2005 by the Defendants No.6 to 9.
3.
That Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 as well as the Defendant Nos. 6 to 9 have been sued in
capacity of guarantors as they stood as guarantors by executing personal
guarantees and repayment/ corporate guarantees respectively in favour of the
Plaintiff Bank in consideration of the financial facilities extended to and availed
by Defendant No.1 from the Plaintiff Bank. Similarly, the Defendant No.5 also
mortgaged his property/assets with the Plaintiff as security for the facilities that
are subject matter of the titled suit. Therefore, the Defendant No. 5 has also been
sued in capacity of mortgagor having mortgaged its properties as security for the
facilities that are subject matter of the titled suit. Therefore, the Defendants Nos. 2
to 9 are also liable for the suit amount and as prayed for in the Plaint a decree is
also liable to be passed against them through sale of their properties whether
mortgaged or not.
That Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 as well as the Defendant Nos. 6 to 9 stood as guarantors by

executing personal guarantees and repayment/ corporate guarantees respectively
in favour of the Plaintiff Bank in consideration of the financial facilities extended
to and availed by Defendant No. 1 from the Plaintiff Bank. Defendant No.1 also
mortgaged, charged and pledged its fixed assets and stocks respectively with the
Plaintiff as security for the facilities subject matter of the titled suit. Similarly,
Defendant No. 5 also mortgaged its property/assets with the Plaintiff as security
for the facilities subject matter of the titled suit

ABL Diamond Polymer

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

ABL Diamond Polymer

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

PLA No.42-B/2005 by the Defendant No.1,

PLA No.43-B/2005 by the Defendants No.2 to 4,

PLA No.44-B/2005 by the Defendant No.5, and

PLA No.45-B/2005 by the Defendants No.6 to 9.

Plaintiff Bank in consideration of the financial facilities extended to and availed

as under section 11(2) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances)

RAJA MOHAMMED AKRAM

SALMAN AKRAM RAJA

Therefore, I am conversant with the facts of the case.

That the Plaintiff is a banking company, incorporated under the Companies

That Defendant No.1 is a private limited company incorporated under the

That Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 as well as the Defendant Nos. 6 to 9 stood as

Copies of the Resolution dated 22-05-1996 passed by the Board of Directors of

That subsequently Defendant No.1 requested the Plaintiff Bank to provide to it

Running Finance of Rs.50.0 Million.

Agreement for Financing dated 10-04-2001 (Annex-E). Under the terms

Promissory Note dated 10-04-2001 for Rs.50.000 million plus Mark-up

Letter of Hypothecation dated 10-04-2001 (Annex- E/2).

Cash Finance of Rs.100.0 Million.

L/C(sight/ DA) of Rs.150 Million.

That in addition to the documents mentioned in para-9 above of this plaint, as

A A. Mortgages & charges by the Defendant No.1.

Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds (Annex H).

Letter of Hypothecation dated 26.08.1999 (Annex H/1).

Form X dated 28.08.1999 (Annex H/2).

Certificate of Charge Registration dated 01.09.1999 (Annex H/2a).

Deed of Floating Charge dated 24.01.2002 (Annex H/3).

Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed dated 24.01.2002 (Annex H/4).

Letter of Hypothecation dated 24.01.2002 (Annex H/5).

Form XVI dated 24.01.2002 (Annex H/6).

Certificate of Charge Registration dated 26.01.2002 (Annex H/7).

General Power of Attorney dated 07-08-2000 (Annex H/8).

By the documents mentioned here-in-above, Defendant No.1 created first floating

Mortgage by the Defendant No. 5.

Lahore together with all present and future constructions, fittings,

Documents executed and furnished:

Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed (Annex-I).

Copies of Letters whereby the Defendants acknowledged their liability and

Principal amount of finance availed

Principal Amount paid by

Principal Amount payable (i-ii above)

Markup payable upto

Balance mark up upto 30-06-05

Amount of Finance principal

an aggregate sum of Rs. 3,922,979,691.30 was paid leaving the aforesaid

Principal amount of finance availed

Principal Amount paid by

Principal Amount payable (i-ii above)

Statement of Account is Annex-N.

Markup payable upto

Balance mark up upto 30-06-05

Amount of Finance principal

Principal amount of finance availed

Principal Amount paid by the

Principal Amount payable (i-ii above)

Markup payable upto

Balance mark up upto 30-06-05

Amount of Finance (principal)

mortgaged/hypothecated/ charged/ pledged by Defendant Nos.1 & 5 with the

Costs of the suit may kindly also be granted.

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

C.M. No. 65-B/2009

C.O.S. No. 24/2005

Dated the day of___ 2008.

Dated the day of___ 2008.