IN THE BANKING COURT NO.

II AT KARACHI
(Original Banking jurisdiction)

Suit No.145 of 2023

Faysal Bank Limited………….………………………....PLAINTIFF

Versus

RizwanKarim………………..…………..……….…DEFENDANT

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO DEFEND THE SUIT IN

SHAPE OF WRITTEN STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 10 OF
THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (RECOVERY OF FINANCES)
ORDINANCE, 2001 ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

PART I
QUESTION OF LAW AND QUESTION OF FACTS

That before replying to the entire contents of the plaint, the following
are the preliminary objections/ substantial questions of law as well as
questions of factsin respect of which requires serious consideration by
this Honourable Court:-

1. That the Plaintiff is making contradictory statements in its

pleadings. As such, on the paragraph No. 2 of the Plaint,a self-coined
terminology of Credit Card Faysal Finance Facility abbreviated as
CCFFF is made, while as per the first paragraph of the terms and
conditions on marked page No. 17,on the Application Form at
Annexure “P/1” to the Plaint, the facility was in shape of Islamic Card
on an Islamic financing arrangement based on Tawarruq. Without
ascertainment of the kind of actual facilitythrough evidence the instant
suit cannot be adjudicated and there is very much possibility that the
precious rights of the Defendant will be affected otherwise.

2. That an Islamic financing arrangement based on Tawarruq

requires two accounts i.e. Card Account and a non-checking
Mudarabah based account (NC Account), which is also reflected from

Page 1 of 40
the second paragraph at marked page No. 17 of terms and conditions
on the Application Form at Annexure P/1. While as per the documents
at Annexure P/3 and P/3-A, there are particulars of apparently only
one account mentioned and without even mentioning as to what kind
of account it is the Card Account or a NC Account as stated above,
which fact requires evidence in order to find out reality of scheme
being played by the Plaintiff.

3. That the Plaintiff is trying to make double profits from the

Defendant by way of fraud and misrepresentation. As such it can be
seen from the bare perusal of the documents at Annexure P/3 and P/3-
A, that accrued profit and musawamah payments have been separately
charged while 40% APR is also being charged as well as mark up is
also being claimed. Hence, the Plaintiff by violating all the rights of
the Defendant and laws of this State of Pakistan is trying to make
profit both ways under the above stated Tawarruq based Islamic
Financing as well as under the conventional banking. Hence, this
demonic act of the Plaintiff should be inquired into and adjudicated
upon after recording of evidence by way of allowing the instant Leave
to Defend Application.

4. That the claim of the Plaintiff is ill-founded as such as per the

first paragraph at marked page No. 17 with the Plaint it can be clearly
seen that there are agreements related to Tawarruq based financing,
which are nowhere produced by the Plaintiff, as such, the Plaintiff has
approached this Honorable Court with unclean hands by way of
suppression of real facts.

5. That as per the general banking practice for Tawarruq based

Islamic Financing arrangement several agreements like Tawarruq
Agreement, Commodity Purchase Agreement, Cardholder Agreement,
Credit Limit Agreement, Repayment Agreement etc are executed
which govern the rate of profit and other terms and conditions and
brings the facility out of the ambit of ‘riba’ as is the spirit of the
Page 2 of 40
Article 38 (f) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan,
1973, which intends at elimination of the ‘riba’ as soon as possible.
As such, is the goal of Tawarruq based Islamic Financing, i.e. is
avoiding interest / riba. Howsoever, the Plaintiff has hidden such
agreements from this Honorable Court in order to claim ‘riba’ /
interest, which are clear mala fide intentions on behalf of the Plaintiff.
By way of recording evidence such controversy needs to be resolved.

6. That the Application Form at P/1 to the Plaint does not even
qualify the basic definition of a banking document as it nowhere
mentions the date of execution which is an important particular as per
the Section 18 of FIO, 2001. Hence, in absence of a valid banking
document, the claim of the Plaintiff cannot be established as such the
instant Suit is liable to be dismissed in toto.

7. That during the pendency of complaint before Banking

Mohtasib and initiation of proceedings by the Defendant prior to the
Plaintiff regarding material facts of the instant matter, the instant suit
is not maintainable, as such, the conduct of the Plaintiff as illustrated
below in the pagraraph Nos. XV and XVI below.

8. That the claim of the Plaintiff is based on misrepresentations

and miscalculations as the Plaintiff allegedly granted the credit card
Faysalfinance facility by way of Master Credit basis (hereinafter
referred as “Finance Facility”)to the Defendant by submitting
Application Form only, which itself is not supported by valid
documents and the terms and conditions mentioned therein are
contrary to the Law of Islamic Finance and particularly under the
Islamic mode of Financing, under SBP BCD Circular No.32 of 1984.

9.[2.] That the titled suit is not maintainable, as this Hon’ble Court has
no jurisdiction to entertain the matter, keeping in view of the fact that
all the documents annexed with the Plaint, which are the sole basis of
the Plaintiff’s claim clearly reflects that it has been executed by

Page 3 of 40
unauthorized person without having any lawful authority and cannot
be sustained in the eye of law. Thus, the plaint of the titled suit is
liable to be rejected instantaneously on the basis of this score alone, as
all the documents annexed with the plaint are liable to be discarded as
the same have been procured in complete violations of settled
principles of law. Further and in addition to the above, all the
documents annexed with the plaint are apocryphal, specious, fake
bogus and without any consideration.

10.[3.] That the suit is not maintainable, as no amount in reality is

outstanding as claimed by the Plaintiff against which the alleged
default had been committed by the Defendant and, as such, the suit is
liable to be dismissed with special compensatory cost.

11.[4.] Thatthe suit is not maintainable, as the terms and conditions of

the Card Agreement upon which the alleged claim of the Plaintiff is
based are void and against the provisions of Section 23 of the Contract
Act as being unconscionable. As such, the alleged claim on the basis
of the alleged contract sought to be enforced is in clear violation of
Section 23 of the Contract Act.

12.[5.] That the suit is untenable in the eye of law, as the same has
been filed with themalafide intentions and ulterior motives mere to
recover the amounts excess than the Defendant availed, as the
Plaintiff has treacherously repeated the same terms and transactions in
similar statement.

13.[6.] That the suit is incompetent in the eye of the law, as it is

absolutely mum on the point as through whom it is designed to sue the
Defendant.

14.[7.] That the Plaintiff has approached this Honorable Court with
unclean hands with the malafideintentionsin order to impose undue
fiscal burden upon the Defendant. The suit is intentionally calculated

Page 4 of 40
to procure wrongful advantage to entire prejudiced of the Defendant
for none of any irresistible legal urge.

15.[8.] That the suit has not been instituted by the authorized persons.
The persons who have signed the Plaint have not been authorized in
accordance with the Provision of Section 9 of the Financial Institution
(Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The Plaint is liable to be
dismissed on this ground alone.

16.[9.] That the Statement of Account annexed with the Plaint is not
prepared in accordance with the procedure laid down in Banker’s
Book Evidence Act, 1891 (XVII of 1891). Further, it is not prepared
on actual amount-utilized transactions basis. Thus, it cannot be called
a Statement of Account as defined in Sub-Section 9 (1) and 9 (2)
Financial Institution (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001.
Further, the Statement of Account in not signed by the
competent/authorized persons. Hence, there is no Statement of
Account in the eye of law. The alleged Statement of Account which is
filed with the Plaint were prepared with bogus entries and the
Officials of the Plaintiff had charged Mark-Up as well as some others
amounts such as FED on fee/Charge, Debit Adjustment, Credit
Adjustment, Muswamah payment, Accrued Profit, Bill Payment Fee,
Cash, withdrawal Fee, DCC Merchant Fee, FX US$ Rate Adjustment
and Chip Feehas been mentioned into the account of the Defendant.
The Statement of Accounts also shows incorrect and inconsistent
entries, ex-facie, cannot be believed without date and time of each
transaction/amount utilized by the Defendant.

17.[10.] That suit is not maintainable, as this Honourable Court has no

jurisdiction to entertain the matter keeping in view of the fact that all the
financial standard documents including Statement of Account annexed
with the Plaint, which are the sole basis of the Plaintiff’s claim are not
sustainable in the eye of law. Thus, the plaint under response is liable to
be rejected instantaneously on the basis of this score alone, as all the
Page 5 of 40
documents annexed with plaint are liable to be discarded as the same
have been procured in complete violation of Section 18 of the Financial
Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 and most of them
are not sustainable under the law. Further and in addition to the above,
all the documents are specious, apocryphal and are without
consideration, hence the suit under response is not maintainable

18.[11.] That the Plaintiff is disentitledto recover the amounts on

several accounts in the absence of specific executed contract for each
facility such as FED on fee/Charge, Debit Adjustment, Credit
Adjustment, Muswamah payment, Accrued Profit, Bill Payment Fee,
Cash withdrawal Fee, DCC Merchant Fee, FX US$ Rate Adjustment
and Chip Fee

19.[12.] That the suit is flawed and untenable in the eye of law, as it has
been drafted and filed with ulterior motive and with the aim to defraud
the Defendant as all the documents annexed with plaint have been
prepared willfully in order to deceive and to cheat the Defendant and in
complete violation of the mandatory legal requirements. The detailed
enquiry is required to be conducted to the effect that the documents
itself speak something contrary to the contents of the plaint and the
alleged Statement of Accounts is totally different and based on
erroneous, imprecise and inaccurate statements.

20.[13.] That as per the authoritative pronouncement of the superior

Courts, if the suit filed is not supported by the certified Statement of
Accounts, then the same is either to be rejected or at the very least,
leave is to be granted to the Defendant. In this regard, it is submitted
that:

a. That the Statement of Accounts must have a continuous

daily posting record showing all debits and credits and
balance as of the close of the period. These accounts
must give dates and descriptions and permit the
customer to verify the bank's record;

Page 6 of 40
 b. That the Statement of Accounts required so as to support
the suit of the financial statement must be for the entire
period i.e. from the date of alleged grant of finance till
the institution of the suit;

c. That all entries in the Statements of Account must be

clearly described so as to ascertain from which account
they have been entered and into which account the same
were further transferred.

d. It is specifically averred that the said mandatory

requirements have not complied with nor any current
account statement or other document depicting
disbursement to the Defendant has been appended with
the plaint. Thus, the suit is liable to be rejected.

21.[14.] That it is well settled established law that any suit filed by a
Financial Institution/ Bank must be supported by a properly verified
Statement of Accounts on oath. It is specifically pointed out that the
Statements of Account filed by the Plaintiff with the plaint under
response is not duly verified on oath and fail to fulfill other
requirements of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891; no
presumption of truth can be attached to such kind of the Statement of
the Accounts. In view of such glaring defect in the Statement of
Accounts attached with the plaint, the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to
be dismissed.

22.[15.] That without prejudice to the aforesaid and absolutely without

admitting the validity of any of the documents filed with the plaint,
even if for the sake of arguments, the alleged documents are
considered for the purpose of ascertaining the amounts due and
payable by the Defendant, if any, it is submitted that the alleged
outstanding amount claimed in the titled suit is neither due nor
payable as claimed by the Plaintiff and, as such, the suit has been filed
at a premature stage without fulfillment of the basic requisite
formalities.

23.[16.] That it is well settled law and dictum of apex Courts that
mark-up cannot be charged in the absence of any written Agreement.

Page 7 of 40
24.[17.] That the Defendant cannot be compelled to make the alleged
payments, as he has not executed any contract with the Plaintiff to
such extent.

25.[18.] That no any cause of action has been accrued against

Defendant as neither there exist anyvalid/legal contract between the
parties nor the Defendant committed any default in repayment as
alleged by the Plaintiff.

26.[19.] That the Statement of Account, which shows incorrect and

inconsistent entries, ex-facie, cannot be believed and said that the
same is valid and amenable document procured in accordance with
requisite provisions of law.

27.[20.] That the suit as framed is not maintainable under Ordinance

XLVI of 2001 as the Plaintiff has deliberately failed to make the
compliance of Section 9 of the Ordinance 2001.

28.[21.] That in the facts and circumstances of the matter, the Plaintiff
isrequired to provide material particulars of the alleged
transactions/Amount utilized with respect to those five transactions
which have been taken place at same date i.e. October 8 th, 2023
amounting to Rs. 1054.00/- each in order to substantiate its alleged
claim of the suit amount.

29.[22.] That the Plaintiff hasnefariouslyconcealed the facts and

figures from this Honorable Court and presented a false and frivolous
plaint with incorrect facts, figures and bogus entries.

30.[23.] That the Plaintiff has approached this Honorable Court with
unclean handswith the sole aim to extort huge amount from the
Defendant.

Page 8 of 40
31.[24.] ThatDefendant has performed satisfactorily during the alleged
period for which the facility was used by him.

32.[25.] That the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed

owing to the simple reason that the Plaintiff has miserably failed to
elaborate breakup of the transactions made during course of business.

33.[26.] That the Plaintiff has not acted fairly and

destroyed/diminished respect and reputation of the Defendant by
sending Ghunda Elements at the business address of the Defendant in
clear violation of the BCD Circular No.13 dated 3.11.2008 of State
Bank of Pakistan.

34.[27.] ThattheDefendant has paid excess amounts to the Plaintiff and

the same was adjusted in other charges without intimation of the
Defendant keeping in view of the facts of the matter that the
Defendant is not liable to pay the alleged charges imposed by the
Plaintiff.

35.[28.] That the conduct of the Plaintiff was unfair and inequitable
with the Defendant while the disputed transaction was reported by the
Defendant the Plaintiff.

36.[29.] That further and in addition to the above, by virtue of newly

inserted Article 10-A in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan, the Defendant is entitled to fair trial as such, the Application
is liable to be allowed so that the process of evidence could be
initiated in order to know the fraudulent activities committed by the
Plaintiff.

37.[30.] That the Plaintiff’s claim is false, baseless, incompetent,

exaggerated, arbitrary and based on concocted pleas, hence, not
maintainable in the eyeoflaw. Presently, the Defendant is not liable to
pay any such exorbitant and unwarranted claim of the Plaintiff. It is
submitted that the facts have been distorted and various aspects have
Page 9 of 40
been concealed by the Plaintiff, hence, it has came to this Honourable
Court with unclean hands and ulterior motives. All these, therefore,
require detailed evidence to be laid down before this Honourable
Court in order to meet the ends of justice.

38.[31.] It is submitted that the alleged claim of the Plaintiff to the

knowledge of Defendant is unlawful and exaggerated, wherefore, not
maintainable under the law and particularly under the Islamic mode of
Financing, under SBP BCD Circular No.32 of 1984.

39.[32.] That the Agreement/ Application relied upon hasneitherbeen

acted upon nor the same fulfill all the requisite information and, as
such, are, therefore, void ab-initio.

40.[33.] That thesuit has not been instituted by the authorized persons.
The persons who have signed the plaint have not been authorized in
accordance with the provision of sub-Section (1) of Section 9 of the
Financial Institution (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001. Further
and in addition to the above, no requirements of law have been
fulfilled by the Plaintiff with regard to the alleged Authority of
Powers as required under Section 173 (3) of the Companies
Ordinance, 1984 and Order XXX of the Civil Procedure Code (Act V
of 1908). The Power of Attorneys marked as Annexures P-1& P-
2with this matter are itself seems to be invalid documents, further and
in addition to the above that the person who has allegedly signed the
Plaint is unauthorized and Document in support annexed as P-2 does
not relate to the person signed the Plaint thusthe suit of the Plaintiff is
liable to the dismissed on this ground alone, as the same is not
instituted by the competent/authorized persons

41.[34.] That no copy of the extract of the Board meeting of Directors

and Memorandum & Article of Association annexed with plaint. The
documents produced by the Plaintiff nowhere reflect that the
Executant of Power of Attorney namelySyed Majid Ali and Mr.

Page 10 of 40
Salman Ahmed Usmaniwereauthorized to delegate such powers in
favour of the alleged Attorneys namely Mr. Fahad Khan. Thus, in the
absence of such material documents which deliberately have been
concealed by the Plaintiff from this Honourable Court, the suit of the
Plaintiff instituted through the Attorneys named in the plaint is not
sustainable in the eye of law.It is evident and transpired that neither
the requisite meeting of Board of Directors of Company have been
held nor the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank has
authorized/allowed and nominated the alleged Attorneys to act and
perform various legal actions for and on behalf of the Plaintiff. There
is nothing on record to show that the persons who have signed the
plaint is legally authorized to verify and institute the pleadings on
behalf of the Bank. As such, in the absence of the Memorandum &
Article of Association, the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to the
dismissed on this ground alone, as the same is not instituted by the
competent/authorized persons.

42.[35.] In addition to the abovementioned preliminary legal

objections, the following additional legal questions/ issues may very
kindly be considered at the time of hearing of the Application for
seeking leave to defend the suit:

a. What was the actual facility availed and offered i.e. Islamic
Tawarruq based finance or a facility based on conventional
banking?
b. Whether the Plaintiff opened two accounts i.e. Card Account
and Non Checking Mudarabah based account (NC Account) as
per the second paragraph on marked page No. 17 of the terms
and conditions annexed to the memo of Plaint with the
Application form at Annexure P/1?
c. Whether the claim of the Plaintiff is maintainable as no valid
banking document has been produced which can establish
relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant, as such the

Page 11 of 40
 Application form does not qualify the definition of a banking
document as per Section 18 of FIO, 2001, since, it lacks the
mandatory requirement of Section 18 i.e. no date has been
mentioned?
d. Whether breach of terms and conditions and over-charging on
part of the Plaintiff by making misleading advertisements and
deceptive marketing regarding K-Electric Bills and
subsequently, the filing of complaint before Banking Mohtasib,
entitles the Plaintiff of the frivolous claim made under the
instant matter?
e. Whether any mark-up and/ or alleged charges as claimed in the
plaint on the basis of Credit Finance Facility (hereinafter
referred to as the “Finance Facility”) under which the only
permissible transaction in Sharia which could be entered and
finalized is that the Customer should in all practical purposes be
acquire the commodity as referred therein. The Plaintiff under
no circumstances is allowed to mould the terms of the
Financing as per its own whims and wishes which is legally not
permissible, thus, the terms of the Agreement(s) and all other
supporting documents annexed with the plaint are void and is
not enforceable under the law. The Plaintiff under the garb of
the alleged finance/ charged documents has recovered and
adjusted the amounts towards mark-upwithout disclosing actual
rate of mark-up/ charges under so-called heads.

f.[b.] Whether any cause of action has been accrued in favour of the
Plaintiffandagainst the Defendant in the absence of any valid/
legal contract?

g.[c.] Whether the alleged Statement of Accounts, which shows

erroneous, incongruous and inconsistent entries, ex-facie, can
be relied upon in the absence of the production of the Original
Books of Accounts by the Plaintiff?

Page 12 of 40
h.[d.] Whether the suit, as framed, is maintainable in law under the
provisions of Ordinance XLVI of 2001?

i.[e.] Whether in the facts and circumstances of the suit, the Plaintiff is
required to provide material particulars of the alleged
transactions to substantiate and to validate its alleged claim for
the suit amount?

j.[f.] Whether the Plaintiff has concealed the facts and statistics from
this Honourable Court and presented a false and frivolous plaint
with incorrect facts and figures and has made an attempt to
mislead this Honourable Court?

k.[g.] Whether the Plaintiff has approached this Honourable Court

with clean hands and has not suppressed the material facts form
this Honourable Court?

l.[h.] Whether the Defendant performed satisfactorily towards its part

of performance during the entire period for which the alleged
facility was utilized by it on account of the alleged transaction
and the Plaintiff itself dishonoured and/ or violated the principal
of Sharia/ Islamic mode of Financing?

m.[i.] Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is maintainable in its present

form when the Plaintiffhas failed to provide actual Agreement
executed between the parties?

n.[j.] Whether the conduct of the Plaintiff was fair and equitable with
the Defendant throughout the period for which the facility was
allegedly availed?

o.[k.] Whether in the absence of any lawful authority produced in Court

in favour of the person(s) who had delegated the powers for
institution of the suit before this Honourable Court, the instant

Page 13 of 40
 suit of the Plaintiff is maintainable and could be allowed to
proceed further in its present form?

p.[l.] Whether the suit is liable to be stayed until and unless the
Plaintiffmakes the compliance of Order VI, Rule 5 of the Civil
Procedure Code?

q.[m.] Whether the officials of the Plaintiff acted in a fair and

transparent manner and have not violated the Prudential Rules &
Regulations and travelled beyond the scope of Islamic Financing
as provided under the guidelines of Sharia?

r.[n.] Whether the Agreementisvoid as per the provision(s) of Section

23 of the Contract Act, 1872?

s.[o.] Whether the terms of all the Agreement/ Application annexed to

the plaint are uncertain and cannot be legally acted upon?

t.[p.] Whether in the absence of the production of the copies of valid

Board Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Plaintiff
towards delegation of powers by the so-called Directors in favour
of the persons named in the plaint could be termed as valid
delegation under the provisions of law?

u.[q.] Whether the copies of the so-called alleged Power of Attorneys

can be termed and use as valid instruments under the provisions
of the Power of Attorney Act (VII of 1882)?

v.[r.] Whether the so-called Power of Attorneysare liable to be stamped

as provided under Schedule-I of Article 48 of the Stamp Act,
1899?

w.[s.] Whether the so-called Power of Attorneysare mandatorily

required to be registered as per Article 17 of the Registration Act
(XVI of 1908)?

Page 14 of 40
x.[t.] The Plaintiff’s suit is liable to be rejected as it has been failed to
fulfill the compliance of Order VII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure
Code (V of 1908).

y.[u.] The Defendantcontroverts and denies propriety, authenticity,

admissibility and effectiveness of each document annexed with
the plaint.

z.[v.] Whether there was and/ or is any alleged default as stated by the
Plaintiff and the instant suit is premature and is liable to be
dismissed?

aa.[w.] Whether on account of the embargo placed in the Section 10 of

the Ordinance, 2001, the Defendant in the presence of Article 10-
A, could be refused the fundamental guaranteed right of the fair
trial?

bb.[x.] Whether the Defendant suffered losses at the hands of the

Plaintiff? If so, to what effect?

cc.[y.] Whether the alleged Statement of Accounts, which shows

erroneous, incongruous and inconsistent entries, ex-facie, can
be relied upon in the absence of the Original Books of Accounts
of the Plaintiff?

dd.[z.] Whether the amounts paid by the Defendantto the Plaintiff could
legally adjustable towards unjustified and unwarranted accounts
instead of its adjustment towards repayment of the principle
amount, if any?

ee.[aa.] Whether in the absence of non-compliance of the mandatory

provisions of Section 9 Sub-Section 2 of the Financial Institutions
(Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, the suit of the Plaintiff
on account of non-disclosing of the amount of disbursement and

Page 15 of 40
 the documentary evidence in support thereof as well as the dates
of disbursement is maintainable under the law and could proceed
further before this Honourable Court?

PART II
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

Without prejudice to the foregoing legal objections and/ or the

contentions submitted in response to the parawise reply to the contents
of the plaint, Defendant hereby submits the true facts before this
Honourable Court. The Defendant also denies all the
allegation(s)levelled against him contained in the plaint save and
except those which are expressly admitted hereinafter and crave leave
to submit as under:

A. That the above suit is not maintainable in law as the same is

filed without supporting any valid Board Resolution passed by
the Board of Directors of the Plaintiff as required under the law.
There is no proof as to whether the Board of Directors ever
granted the Power of Attorney in favour of the person(s) who
had delegated the alleged Authority in the name of the
person(s) mentioned in the plaint who have signed the plaint.
There is nothing on the record of this Honourable Court with
regard to the authority and competency of the person(s) who
have instituted the suit before this Honourable Court, and it is
further submitted that any authority if at all produced by the
Plaintiff at later stage, the same is of no use, and cannot cure
the defect already taken place at the time of the institution of
the instant suit before this Honourable Court.

B. That the claim of the Plaintiff is false, baseless, exaggerated,

arbitrary and based on concocted pleas. The Defendant is not
liable to pay the exorbitant and unwarranted amount of claimed
as alleged in the plaint.In fact, the Defendant is entitled to claim
the amount of damages sustained by it on account of illegal
Page 16 of 40
 threats extended by the so-called Officials of the Plaintiff
during their un-authorized visit(s) at the office of the Defendant
without any advance notice of meeting or otherwise as provided
under SBP Notification dated November 8, 2008.

C. That the Defendant controverts and denies correctness,

authenticity and effectiveness of each document and The
Defendant hereby vehemently denying the contents of the
Plaint as the facts have been distorted and various aspects have
been concealed from this Honourable Court. As such, all these
requirement detail investigation in shape of recording evidence.

D. That the Plaintiff Bank has illegally charged mark-up over

mark-up in shapeofdifferent accounts/ names without having
any authority and adjusted the amount paid towards the
principal amount into the wrong accounts. The claim and
actions of the Plaintiff apart from being unconscionable, illegal,
unwarranted and untenable in the eye of the law. Statement of
Account (Annexure 3) being the basis of the claim of the
Plaintiff ex-facie false, and the said claim is not sustainable and
the Plaintiff has failed to produce the true copies of the entries
from the books of account maintained by the Plaintiff in the
ordinary course of business. The certifications by the one of
the Plaintiffunauthorized Officer, as contemplated by the
Bankers Books Evidence act, 1891, is probably false. The
Plaintiff is called upon to produce the Books of Accounts
maintained by it. Under the circumstances, it is clears violation
of the Banking practice as well as the directions issued by the
State Bank of Pakistan in shape of circulars. The all rules and
regulations issued by the State bank of Pakistan were no fully
complied with by the Plaintiff in this case. The Statement of
account has not been prepared in accordance with sub-section 1
of Section 9 of the Financial Institution (Recovery of Finances)

Page 17 of 40
 Ordinance, 2001. The names and designations of the relevant
officer who has prepared the accounts have not been shown at
the end of each account. Further, the same are not attested on
oath as required under the law. It is further submitted that
statement of account is not certified under the sub Section 8 of
section 2 of Banker’s Book Evidence Act.1891.

E. That all the rules and regulations issued by the State Bank of
Pakistan were not fulfilled by the Plaintiff in this case. The
Statement of Account(s) has not been prepared in accordance
with sub-Section 1 of Section 9 of Ordinance XLVI of 2001.
Hence, the requirement of law has not been made and the
accounts are neither attested nor certified by competent person(s).

PART III

PARAWISE REPLY/ OBJECTIONS

ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

[I.] That the contents of the Paragraph 1 of the plaint under response
are formal in nature and, as such, no specific reply from the Defendant
is being offered, however, the Plaintiff is required putto strict proof
with respect to the contentions raised in the paragraph under response.

I.[II.] That with regard to the contents of the paragraph No. 2 of the
instant Suit under response it is submitted that there is no such Credit
Card Faysal Finance Facility (CCFFF), which was ever availed by the
Defendant from the Plaintiff. As such, the above stated term is self-
coined and has no existence in reality. As such, the Defendant never
entered into any kind of such facility as stated by the Plaintiff and
does not know that what is a Credit Card Faysal Finance Facility
abbreviated as “CCFFF”. Hence, on the basis of such assertion that
the Customer ever availed a CCFFF facility as stated in the paragraph
No. 2 under response, the Defendant cannot be considered a
‘customer’ of the Plaintiff under Section 2 (2) of the Financial

Page 18 of 40
Institutions (Recovery of Finances)Ordinance, 2001 (hereinafter
referred to as “FIO, 2001”).

II. That the contents of Paragraphs2 and paragraph No.3 of the

plaint under response are false, incorrect and are denied as framed. It
is most respectfully submitted that the Application form along with
CNICwhich is annexed with the plaint and marked as Annexure “P-1
& 2”is forged and fictitious documenthaving no sanctity in the eye of
law. And It is submitted that the Ddocument annexed as P/-2 to the
memo of instant suit, is not a legible Copy copywhich creates serious
doubts on the authenticity of the said documents produced by the
Plaintiff. in order to substantiate the same is put to strict proof with
respect to sameIt is evident from the contents of said Application
Form which is allegedly executed between the Plaintiff and Defendant
for issuance of Finance Facilityby way of Master Credit Card but the
same does not disclose that when was Credit Card issued in favour of
the Defendant.It is submitted that the alleged Application Form
annexed at Annexure P/1 does not qualify the definition of a ‘Banking
Document’ as defined under the Section 18 of the FIO, 2001, due to
the reason that such Application Form nowhere shows the date on
which the Application Form was submitted/ executed. The Plaintiff
has violated the Section 18 (1) of the FIO, 2001 which clearly stated
that “No financial institution shall obtain the signature of a customer
on a banking document which contains blanks in respect of important
particulars including the date, the amount, the property or the period
of time in question”. As such, it can be clearly seen on marked page
No. 23 that there is a blank on the place where date was supposed to
be mentioned. Furthermore, there are many other blanks in the said
Application Form, which are important particulars like the whole
section of the ‘Auto Debit Authority Form” on marked page No. 25 is
completely empty but only signatures of the Defendant are taken. It
has been wrongly stated in the paragraph No. 3 under response that
the Defendant ever applied for a Finance Facility by way of Master

Page 19 of 40
Card Basis as such no such kind of request was ever made by the
Defendant. On the contrary the terms and conditions in the
Application Form at Annexure P/1 clearly stipulate a very different
scenario. As such, according to the terms and conditions of the said
Application Form on marked page Nos. 17 to 23, show that an Islamic
Financing Arrangement based upon Tawarruq was intended.Further
and in addition to the above, it is submitted that neither any finance
is outstanding as alleged by the Plaintiff nor any alleged default has
been committed by the Defendant, It is submitted that terms and
conditions on the first paragraph at the marked page No. 17 reflect
that there is a limit stated to be made available pursuant to an Islamic
Financing arrangement based on Tawarruq. As such, as per the said
condition several requisite agreements were supposed to exist which
are not produced by the Plaintiff. Now, that as per the general banking
practice for Tawarruq based Islamic Financing arrangement several
agreements like Tawarruq Agreement, Commodity Purchase
Agreement, Cardholder Agreement, Credit Limit Agreement,
Repayment Agreement etc are executed but no such agreements are
produced by the Plaintiff which creates serious doubts as to the
authenticity of the claim made under the instant Suit under response.
Furthermore, Sharia Board Approval was also mandatory which is
also not placed on record. Furthermore, as per the second paragraph
on marked page No. 17 there were supposed to be two accounts
opened which are stated to be ‘Card Account’ and ‘non-checking
Mudarabah based account, while there is no proof given by the
Plaintiff that the stated two accounts as per the terms and conditions
were ever opened by the Plaintiff.

[III.] That the contents of Pparagraphs No. 4 of the memo of instant

Suit under response are misconceived false and frivolous as such the
same are meant to only mislead this Honorable Court. It is most
vehemently denied that as per the terms and conditions of the
Application Form at Annexure P/1 to the plaint, there was any

Page 20 of 40
‘stipulated days’ for repayment of any amount. As such, from the bare
perusal of the Application Form on 2nd paragraph on marked page No.
19 that there is no stipulated date given but such payment required
date appears to be at the whims and wishes of the Plaintiff. Hence,
with the force of this above stated term / condition, the alleged default
can be placed upon the customers of the Plaintiff when the Plaintiff
wants the default to happen. It is submitted that there is no proof
produced by the Plaintiff that it ever informed the Defendant through
issuance of repayment bills under the monthly / daily transaction. It is
most vehemently denied that the Defendant ever agreed to payment of
any kind of service charges per transaction. As well as, it was never
agreed that any mark up along with late payment charges will be made
in the self-proclaimed event of default by the Plaintiff.As per several
verdicts given by Honourable Courts in many cases, The Plaintiff is
not entitled to recover late payment charges under any circumstances
whatsoever as no dated has been specified in the Application Form for
making payment. As such, the claim has no substance. The late
payment/ service charges are legally not permitted and as such the
same cannot be charged from the Defendant.It is very pertinent to
mention here that as per the terms and conditions in the alleged
Application Form on 4th paragraph at marked page No. 19, the bank is
incorporation and undertaking that the customer will not utilized the
allegedly disbursed funds for any non-Shariah based investment and
on the contrary is itself claiming mark-up, which fact is hit by the
principal of approbate and reprobate and the Plaintiff is estopped from
blowing hot and cold in the same breath. From the bare perusal of the
terms and conditions of alleged Application Form at marked page No.
17 to 23 it can be clearly ascertained that an Islamic financing
arrangement based on Tawarruq was intended in order to avoid mark
up. The salient features of the aforementioned terms and conditions at
marked page Nos. 17 to 23 are described below:-
a. An Islamic Card Musawamah Financing account called
as ‘Card Account’ will be opened and card limit will be
Page 21 of 40
 provided pursuant to Islamic Financing arrangement
based on Tawarruq.
b. Another account called as non-checking Mudarabah
based account called as “NC Account” will also be
opened.
c. The bank was authorized to represent regarding
execution of purchase and sale of units in connection
with Tawarruq and credit the proceeds in NC Account
and execute documents on behalf of customer to execute
documents against the selling price offered by the bank.
As such no sale of units are disclosed in the memo of
instant suit, which creates serious doubts with regard to
the authenticity of the claim of Plaintiff.
d. As per the contents of the second last paragraph of the
terms and conditions at the alleged Application form on
marked page No. 17, the bank was liable to provide the
Schedule of Charges to the customer, and there is no
proof given by the Plaintiff as to whether such SoC was
ever provided.
e. The last paragraph on marked page No. 17 show that the
terms and conditions are unilateral at the whims and wish
of the bank. As such, on the basis of such kind of non-
definite terms and conditions no claim can be made.
f. That bank on 5th paragraph is taking declaration from the
customer that it shall not invested the allegedly financed
amount for any non-sharia compliant business but in the
paragraph under response it asking for mark up as such
the bank is estopped by the principal of approbate and
reprobate.
g. As per the 9th paragraph on marked page No. 19, it can be
seen that the bank is playing dirty. As such, the bank will
also charge its regular banking charges as per SoC plus it
will also charge profit on the Musawamah payment
Page 22 of 40
 amount via Islamic mode of banking. This shows clear
mala fide on part of the bank as such the bank is trying to
make profit beyond its entitlement having no character or
morals.
h. Furthermore, none of the conditions as stated under the
heading of Mudarabah Account Terms and Conditions on
marked page no. 19 of the instant Suit seem to be not
complied by the bank.

III. That with regard to the contents of the paragraph Nos. 5and 6 of
the memo of instant Suit are denied most vehemently. It is submitted
that as per the Application Form at P/1 to the memo of Plaint it can be
clearly seen that such Application Form is regarding an Islamic Card
under Tawarruq based Islamic Financing not any credit card finance
facility as alleged in the paragraph under response. It is submitted that
the Plaintiff has not annexed any Statement of Account with the
plaintthroug which it can be ascertained whether any amount is due or
not. As such the documents produced at Annexure P/3 and P/3-A,
appear to be some kind of bills. As such, bills cannot be considered a
Statement of Account. Hence, these documents at Annexure P/3 and
P/3-A cannot be considered Statement of Account as described in the
Section 9 (2) of FIO, 2001. Hence, there is no proof given in order to
establish that any amount was availed by the Defendant. Furthermore,
it is submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the Application
Form at Annexure P/1, there is no date mentioned as to when the
payments were due. From the perusal of the documents at Annexure
P/3 and P/3-A, it can be clearly seen that the ‘Required Payment Date’
was made at the whims and wishes of the Plaintiff.As per the
documents at Annexure P/3 and P/3-A with the Plaint it appears that
thecustomer has already paid all the required amounts but the Plaintiff
has in a mala fide manner adjusted such amounts towards hidden
charges to which the customer never agreed by signing the
Application Form at Annexure P/1 to the plaint. It is submitted that as

Page 23 of 40
per the documents at Annexure P/3 and P/3-A the Plaintiff has been
charging Musawamah payment, and accrued profit in terms of the
Tawarruqbased Islamic Financing as well as the Plaintiff is charging
rates in view of conventional banking system by way of interest in
shape of Annual Percentage Charge (APR) at the rate of 40%.To
make it worse, it is nowhere reflected that whether such APR is being
charged on a daily, monthly or yearly basis, since, it is nowhere
mentioned either in the terms and conditions with the Application
Form at Annexure P/1 or in the documents at Annexure P/3 & P/3-A.
Hence, evidence is required to be led in order to establish as to what
kind of financing was allegedly provided to which the customer
agreed and what kind of financing is being maneuvered by the
Plaintiff by way of hidden charges and other clever means.4,5 and 6
of the plaint under response are false, frivolous, contradictory and
untenable, hence,are denied as framed. It is respectfully submitted that
the finance facility, reference of which is mentioned in the paragraph
under response, approved by the Plaintiff at the request of the
Defendantand availed to some extent which had subsequently adjusted
repaid.In view of the above, in fact, the Defendant customer as per the
Annexure P/3 and P/3-A,has paid excess amount and the Plaintiff had
adjusted the same in against several frivolous accounts like 40% APR
as stated earlier, as well as, other hidden / unknown charges like such
as FED on fee/Charge, Debit Adjustment, Credit Adjustment,
Muswamah payment, Accrued Profit, Bill Payment Fee, Cash
withdrawal Fee, DCC Merchant Fee, FX US$ Rate Adjustment, and
Chip Fee etc. The assertions and/or claim raised by the Plaintiff in the
paragraphs under reply cannot be allowed in view of the judgments
delivered by Honourable Courts of Pakistan. As per several verdicts
given by Honourable Courts in many cases, The Plaintiff is not
entitled to recover late payment charges under any circumstances
whatsoever as no dated has been specified in the Application Form for
making payment. As such, the claim has no substance. The late
payment/ service charges are legally not permitted and as such the
Page 24 of 40
same cannot be charged from the Defendant.The assertion woven in
the paragraphs under response with regard to several kinds of charges
is a projection of mind disease of the Plaintiff. However, an
unsuccessful attempt has been made to avoid the reality and to cheat
the Defendant. It is specifically denied that the Defendant ever availed
the full limit. It is also specifically denied that the Defendant ever
committed any willful default as such it was due to the conduct of the
Plaintiff that it was adding undue and unjustified charges into the
account which warranted adjudication and calculations, as such the
Plaintiff wants to make illegal and untenable profits against the terms
and conditions and against the spirit of law. Furthermore, the contents
of the paragraphs above are reiterated here and are not repeated for the
sake of brevity.

[IV.] That the contents of Paragraph 7 of the plaint under response are
false, incorrect and are denied as framed. The glaring illegalities are
apparent from the Break-up Summary given by the Plaintiff in the
paragraph under response. The Break-up Summary incorporated by
the Plaintiff in the paragraph under response is also self-contradictory
to the contentions raised by the Plaintiff in the preceding paragraphs.
The Plaintiff deliberately failed to disclose the repayments made by
Defendant towards the principal and has not disclosed the other
repayments made by the Defendant. The alleged Statement of
Accounts annexed with the plaint and marked as (Annexures “ P-4”)
reflects that the same has not properly been prepared, signed and
certified whereby huge amounts have been shown outstanding against
the Defendant despite the fact that the Defendant has paid excess
amount and, as such, nothing is due and payable against the
Defendant. It is submitted that most of the amounts paid by the
Defendant has wrongly been adjusted towards alleged mark-up,
Services Charges, late payment and other arbitrary charges while as
per strict compliance such amounts were required to be adjusted
towards principle repayments and not otherwise. It is submitted that

Page 25 of 40
the Break-up Summary is contradictory to the Plaintiff’s claim in the
plaint as well as in the attached supporting documents. As such, the
Plaintiff is not legally entitled to seek the alleged amounts on the basis
of such documents. The unlawful adjustment of the amounts towards
the recovery of the alleged profit with respect to such overdue
amounts of mark-up on mark-up is unjustified and unwarranted, while
the Defendant never signed for any kind of facility upon which
markup can be charged as such the facility availed was Twarruq based
Isamic financing as illustrated in the above paragraphs. The Plaintiff
is not entitled to seek the recovery of the amounts as claimed in the
paragraph under response and the alleged Statement of Accounts
referred in the paragraph under response is based on false and
fictitious entries which cannot sustained at all. Without prejudice to
what has been stated herein before, the Plaintiff cannot adjust any
single penny towards other accounts without providing justification
and proof of such payments through documentary evidence. Since,
majority of the entries contained in the Statement of Accounts are
uncertain and unrelated payments without supporting any
documentary evidence towards the same. Thus, in reality all such
amounts are liable to be adjusted towards principle liability, if any,
and not otherwise. The Plaintiff has paid in excess and nothing is due
and payable, as such, the amounts claimed in the paragraph under
response are unjustified, unwarranted and untenable in the eye of law.
It is a fraudulent act committed on the part of the Plaintiff to defraud
the Defendant by multiplying the figures by unilaterally charging
unnecessary unagreedmark-up and services charges without any
justifications of whatsoever. It is submitted that the Plaintiff is under
obligation to produce the entire set of documentation from day one till
end with respect to the commencement of the relationship between the
Plaintiff on one hand and the Defendant on other hand. Hence, all the
allegations leveled by the Plaintiff in the paragraph under response are
denied and the Plaintiff is put to strict proof with respect to the same.
It is very pertinent to mention here that as per the terms and
Page 26 of 40
conditions reflected with the Application Form at Annexure P/1 to the
Plaint, the Plaintiff was only entitled to the amounts under the
Tawarruq based Islamic Financing agreement with has nothing to do
with mark-up or any SoC of the Plaintiff.

IV.[V.] That the contents of Paragraphs8 & 9 of the plaint under

response are false, frivolous, misconceived and untenable, hence, are
denied as framed. It is respectfully submitted that thePlaintifftime and
again made several attempts and approached the Plaintiffseeking
justification with regard to bogus entries and arbitrary fees charged by
the Plaintiff in complete violation of law as well as dictums of the
Apex Courts but the Plaintiff all the times succeeded to linger on the
matter on the different pretexts. Subsequently, the Defendant having
left with no room started to approach the Plaintiff through email but
the Plaintiff despite having received the same did not bother to
provide requisite information. It is denied that the Plaintiff approached
the Defendant and demanded alleged amount of claim but the
Defendant disappeared as alleged by the Plaintiff in the paragraph
under response. It is submitted that the claim of the Plaintiff is not
maintainable as framed. The claim of alleged charges as stated in the
impugned statements are denied for want of knowledge and the
Plaintiff is required to strict proof with respect to the same. The
alleged claim of the Plaintiff towards recovery of unfounded and
undue amount is not sustainable in the eye of law as the Plaintiff has
not given mandatory breakup of the transaction as required under the
law. It is the Defendant who actually suffered the losses and his life
was also made miserably by the Plaintiff’s officials as they visited the
business place of the Defendant time and again and given unjustified
and unwarranted threats under the grab of the recovery process but
deliberately avoided to provide required documents such as detail of
repayments and proof of bogus entries. The Plaintiff is not entitled to
the alleged amount as well as other charges as claimed by it. Such fact
can easily be verified through a valid and actual Statement of Account

Page 27 of 40
of the Defendant if the Plaintiff is directed to bring the same on the
record of this Honourable Court, as far as the attached Statement of
Account(s)is concerned, the same is forged and fictitious document
which has not been verified by the competent person as required
under the law. Hence, all the allegations leveled by the Plaintiff in the
Paragraphs under response are denied vehemently and, as such, the
Plaintiff is put to strict proof with respect to the same.

V.[VI.] That the contents of paragraph 10 (which is wrongly

numbered as paragraph 9) in the plaint under response is denied being
completely false, frivolous and misconceived, as framed. It has
incorrectly been submitted by the Plaintiff in the paragraph under
response that Mr. Fahad Khan and Mr. Syed NaseemAkhter are the
duly authorized Attorneys of the Plaintiff to institute the titled suit on
behalf of the Plaintiff and to do all acts necessary or incidental for
proper prosecution of the case on the basis of such Power of Attorneys
dated 10-10-2017 and31-01-2019 which are annexed as Annexures P-
1&P-2 to the plaint. It has also incorrectly been stated by the Plaintiff
in the paragraph under response that the said authorized Attorneys of
the Plaintiff are well conversant with the facts of the case and are
entitled to do the needful on behalf of the Plaintiff with respect to the
titled suit. The attention of this Honourable Court is respectfully
invited to the said Power of Attorneys which are annexed and marked
as Annexures P-1 to the suit which has allegedly been executed by
Mr. Syed Majid Ali and Mr. Salman Ahmed Usmani. It is submitted
that the Plaintiff has failed to bring any material and/or documentary
evidence in support of its version to the extent that said President&
CEO of the Plaintiff Bank were ever authorized to appoint any other
officials of the Bank to act for and on its behalf. The entire perusal of
the said Power of Attorneys clearly reflects that nowhere the said
documents have been filed to prove such version. The Plaintiff has
also deliberately failed to produce the copies of Memorandum and
Article of Associations and the Board Resolution by virtue of which it

Page 28 of 40
could be ascertain that the said Group Executives could exercise such
powers on behalf of the Plaintiff. In the absence of the production of
such authority by the Board of the Directors of the Plaintiff, do not
possess such authority on behalf of the Plaintiff to appoint other
Officials of the Bank. Anyhow, the above stated executant of the
Power of Attorneys have to satisfy this Honourable Court as to what
authority and on what basis the delegation of the Power have been
exercised by them on behalf of the Plaintiff. Until and unless, the said
Group Executives satisfies this Honourable Court with regard to their
so-called authority to delegate their powers in favour of Fahad Khan
the institution of titled suit is not maintainable as it has been filed by
incompetent persons having no authority from the Competent
Authority. Since, the Bank is run and managed by its Board of
Directors, as such, no action without the approval of the Board of
Directors can be declared valid, as such, the so-called Group
Executive in their official capacity itself possess no authority until and
unless some authority is delegated to them. In the titled case, the
Plaintiff has deliberately and wilfully concealed the materials with
regard to competency of the person(s) who have delegated the powers
in favour of the person(s) named in the plaint. Since, the delegators
were themselves not authorized by the Board of Directors of the
Plaintiff, as such, any further delegation by them is of no legal value
and any action taken on the basis of their delegation have no legal
value. Further and in addition to the above, it would be pertinent to
bring into the kind notice of this Honourable Court that the so-called
Power of Attorneys on the basis of which and by virtue of the same
Mr. Fahad Khan are posing and claiming theselves, as authorized
Attorneys of the Plaintiff to appear, commence, sign, verify the plaint
jointly with another Attorney but the record reflects something
different as pretended by the so-called Attorney. Hence, it can easily
be said that the plaint under response has been signed and instated by
the unauthorized and incompetent persons who have no authority to
do, act and transact such acts on behalf of the Plaintiff. As such, the
Page 29 of 40
suit filed by the Plaintiff is incompetent and is liable to be dismissed
on account that it has been filed by incompetent person(s) on its
behalf. Further and in addition to the above, it is pertinent to mention
here that the said Syed NaseemAkhtar has signed and verified the
plaint without any Power of Attorney and the same is not attached
with the plaint, therefore, it is stated that the Plaintiff has badly failed
to establish that under what authority Syed NaseemAkhtar has signed
and verified the plaint.

VI.[VII.] That the contents of Paragraph 11 (which is wrongly

numbered as paragraph 10) of the plaint under response are false,
frivolous and concocted, hence, are denied as framed. It is
respectfully submitted that no cause of action accrued to the Plaintiff
against the Defendant on any date and on any grounds of whatsoever
allegedly mentioned by the Plaintiff in the paragraph under response
within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. The Defendant has
fulfilled all of his parts of contractual obligations and has not done
anything, which is the violation of any contractual obligation as per
law. Moreover, the Defendant has also scrupulously and carefully
followed all rules and regulations and everything has been done
within the ambit of law. Therefore, in the absence of any default and
valid cause of action, no suit could be maintainable under the law and
as the suit is without any cause of action and is premature, as such, it
is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost. The Plaintiff has
falsely alleged in the Statement of Account that the Defendant haspaid
his last payment in the month ofNovember, 2022 on account of which
it has continue cause of action, whereas it can clearly be established
and substantiated from the available Statement of Account that the
Defendant paid his last payment in the month of December, 2022. It is
also pertinent to mention here that the Plaintiff has not provided the
complete Statement of Account intentionally and deliberately in order
to extort the huge amount from Defendant.Hence, no cause of action,
as alleged, has been accrued in favour of the Plaintiff and against the

Page 30 of 40
Defendant for the reason that the Defendant disputed some bogus
entries and requested the Plaintiff to provide requisite information but
the Plaintiff failed to do so.

VII.[VIII.] That in reply to Paragraph 11 of the plaint under response,

it is respectfully submitted that the jurisdiction of this Honourable
Court is denied and the same is signed and verified by incompetent
and un-authorized person and is based on false and frivolous grounds
and in reality there is no default on the part of the Defendant, hence,
the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The suit has
been wrongly valued; however, the payment of maximum Court fee is
a matter of record.

VIII.[IX.] That thecontents of the Prayer Clause as mentioned in the

plaint under response are wholly misconceived and are totally denied.
It is submitted that the claim of the Plaintiff Bank is not maintainable
and is also false, exaggerated, overstated, unfounded and arbitrary as
well as the suit is based on unauthorized and unlawful claims and has
only been filed to extort huge amount, which is paid by the Defendant
as repayment of amount-utilized and to cause harassment to the
Defendant. Thus, the Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as claimed
and the Plaintiff’s suit should be dismissed in circumstances of the
matter as unsustainable. Hence, the suit is liable to be rejected with
costs for being without cause of action, malevolent, vexatious,
malafide, frivolous and not maintainable under the law.

IX.[X.] It is respectfully submitted that the Plaintiff has not annexed

with the Plaint the true Statement of Accounts. It is pertinent to
mention here that the so called statement of Accountsand the alleged
Power of Attorney filed by Plaintiff Bank are contradictory to each
other, Plaintiff Bank has failed to file documents in support of his so-
called Statement of Account and.. That in compliance of requisite
information as required under Section 10 of Financial Institutions

Page 31 of 40
(Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, the Defendant submits as
under:

(i) The Amount of the Finance availed by the Defendant

from the Financial Institution.

The Plaintiff allegedly provided the Credit Card Facility to the

Defendant and Defendant Utilized Rs.770,872.50. The perusal
of Statement of Accounts annexed with the plaint and marked
as Annexure P/3 which starts fromJune 25 th, 2022reflects that
totalamount utilized from the June 25 th 2022till the May,
2023an amount of Rs.770,872.50were utilized in day to day
routine transaction. But the Plaintiff failed to show any valid
Agreements for disbursement and renewal thereof in the plaint.

X.[XI.] It is respectfully submitted that the Plaintiff has not annexed

with the Plaint the true Statement of Accounts. It is pertinent to
mention here that the so called statement of Account and the filed by
Plaintiff Bank are contradictory to each other, Plaintiff Bank has
failed to file documents in support of his so Called Statement of
Account and. That in compliance of requisite information as required
under Section 10 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances)
Ordinance, 2001, the Defendant submits as under:

(i) The Amount of the Finance availed by the Defendant

from the Financial Institution.

The Plaintiff in connivance with the so-called Manager of

Defendant allegedly provided the Credit Card Facility and
Defendant Utilized Rs.770,872.50/-Rs. 768,261/-. The perusal
of Statement of Accounts annexed with the plaint and marked
as Annexure P/3 which starts fromJune 25th,2022reflects that
total withdrawals from the June 2022 till the May, 2023an
amount of Rs. 768,261/-Rs.770,872.50/-were utilized in day to
day routine transaction. But the Plaintiff failed to show any

Page 32 of 40
valid Agreements for disbursement and renewal thereof in the
plaint.

(ii) The Amount of Finance Repaid by Defendant to the

Financial Institution.

The Defendant has repaid to the Plaintiff a sum by way of

Required Payment on monthly basis,the Defendant from July,
2022till December, 2023 further deposited an amount of
Rs.308,200.00409,780/-throughmonthly payments, which facts
is also clearly reflected from the so called Statement of
Accounts annexed with the plaintas such the facts which are
admitted needs not to be proved, therefore, no documentary
evidence with such admission is required to be attached.
Whereas, the Plaintiff Bank had also illegally charged different
charges without any agreement or terms and conditions. Now,
due to bad intention and malafide on the part of the Plaintiff,
illegal charges are unjustified and unwarranted. The above-
referred amounts have been paid by regular deposits made in
the accounts from time to time and the Plaintiff has illegally
adjusted the same towards mark-up and a very small amount
towards principle which act is totally unjustified and
unwarranted in the law. The amounts were required to be
adjusted towards principal. The dates of the repayments are
clearly reflecting in the attached Statement of Accounts filed by
the Plaintiff with the Plaint, hence the true compliance of the
Section 10 sub-Section 4 is hereby complied with.

(iii) The Defendants dispute all other illegal charges as

claimed by the Plaintiff Bank without having any valid
justification, which are shown in the Plaint as well as all
those illegal entries as shown/ contained in the annexed
alleged Statement of Accounts. The Defendant is not
liable to pay the amounts as claimed by the Plaintiff

Page 33 of 40
 Bank in the instant suit, as the Defendant suffered huge
losses because of illegal action on the part of the
Plaintiff, which has already been explained in the
preliminary objections as well as in the parawise reply.
Further, the said Defendant time and again has tried his
utmost to sort out the matter with the Plaintiff but all in
vain. The Plaintiff turned a deaf ear to Defendant request
as it already had a cut and dried plans to play a game of
cheating with the Defendant. This illegal and unethical
act on the part of the Plaintiff clearly disentitles it to
initiate any type of proceedings against the Defendant
and the alleged claim without having any justification at
all. Further and in addition to the above referred acts of
the Plaintiff, the Defendant has paid in excess and the
suit is premature and is liable to be dismissed as it has
been filed without any valid and lawful
contracts/Agreement.

XI.[XII.] It is respectfully submitted that the Plaintiff has not given

proper breakup ofthe entries, amount utilized and repaid amount in the
suit plain with the malafide intentions and ulterior motives. As such
the alleged Statements of Account annexed with the Plaint are highly
disputed wherein the Plaintiff had shown the one entry at several
places in order to inflect upon the Defendant financial losses and
impose heavy taxes and extra markup, as such the same requires fair
inquiry and needs to lead evidence of the parties. However, claim of
the Plaintiff being misconceived, incompetent, vexatious and
suspicious is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with costs.

Keeping in view of the above submission and factual position the

Defendant is unable to provide detail of repaid amount for the reasons
already submitted in the foregoing paragraphs. However, it is evident
from thecontents of Annexures P-3 of the Plaint which clearly reflect

Page 34 of 40
that the Defendant has paid excess amount allegedly availed by the
Defendant. Moreover, it is crystal clear that the Plaintiff has repeated
the entries even after reasonable delay which created reasonable doubt
in the mind and it is settled principal of law that benefit of doubt
always goes to the favour of the alleged offender/ defaulter. Hence all
the illegal charges as claimed by the Plaintiff without having requite
breakup required under Section 9 of the Financial Institution
(Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 as well as all those illegal
entries as shown/ contained in the annexed Statementof Account are
denied vehemently and the Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.

XII.[XIII.] It is very pertinent to mention here that the Plaintiff, has

been committing ill practices and mis-management with respect to its
rights and obligations towards the Defendant. The Plaintiff bank
publicized regarding it new facility wherein the Plaintiff bank offered
that electricity bills paid through Credit Card of Plaintiff Bank will be
converted into three months installments. As such, the Defendant,
paid the K-Electric Bill as per the scheme launched by the Plaintiff
Bank. Howsoever, in the bill issued on the 1 st week of November,
2022, the whole K-Electric bill amounting to Rs. 69,000/-, was
charged. The Defendant made repeated oral as well as written requests
and made several efforts for issuance of revised K-Electric bill which
should have been 1/3rd of the total amount of Rs. 69,000/- as per the
aforementioned scheme of the Plaintiff bank. But despite repeated
phone calls from November 15th, 2022 till November 28th, 2022 and
despite raising concerns through e-mails, the Plaintiff kept deaf ear
towards such requests. Due to the reason that the Defendant had 10
years history of relationship with the Plaintiff and in order to avoid
any further complexities the Defendant paid the bill outstanding till
the month of November, 2022 under protest excluding the above
stated transaction. The Defendant was assured by the Plaintiff’s
officials that excess amount charged by the Bank shall be readjusted
in relation to above stated K-Electric bill charges. Despite lapse of 02

Page 35 of 40
months the issue of the Defendant was not resolved regarding the
correction of bill of December, 2022, hence, the Defendant informed
the Bank in writing about his intention of stopping payments unless
and until the correct revised bill is issued. But till date such issue is
not resolved, hence, the Defendant was constrained to file a written
complaint before Banking Mohtasib, which is still pending. On the
other hand the Plaintiff instead of resolving the issue has been causing
harassment to the Defendant and making threats as well as causing
insult by rude behavior. Specifically, two representatives of the
Plaintiff that are Arsalan Ahmed and Naveed Khan have been making
uninvited and uninformed visits to the office of the Defendant and
have misbehaved with the Defendant in front of his subordinates as
well as threats have been made. Which acts of the Plaintiff has caused
serious loss of goodwill and reputation as well as mental agony to the
Defendant. As a result, the Defendant wrote to the President of the
Bank in April, 2023 regarding such conduct of his officials. On the
next day a phone call was received, whereby the Defendant was
ensured that the issue will be resolved as well as reply to the
complaint before Banking Mohtasib will be made.

True copies of
i. Advertisement of the Plaintiff regarding installments of K-Electric Bills
ii. e-mails correspondence between Plaintiff and Defendant
iii. Complaint made to Banking Mohtasib
are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure.

XIII. Instead of resolving the aforementioned issues faced by the

Defendant, the Plaintiff started inserting irrational charges in the bills
of subsequent months. Ironically, despite breach of contract on behalf
of the Plaintiff by compromising the basic rights of the Defendant, the
Plaintiff instead of resolving such issues has maliciously tried to
damage the banking history of the Defendant by making false report
to eCIB.

Page 36 of 40
XIV. That the suit of Plaintiff is not maintainable in the eye of law,
as the same is filed without supporting the duly certified Statement of
Account on oath. The same is mandatory requirement of the Sub-
Section 2 of the Section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of
Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The entries contained therein are not on
daily products basis and as such the charges levied by the Plaintiff are
not permitted under the law. The Plaintiff has not annexed the Sale/
Purchase Invoices of the each purchase of product specifically the
disputed one which is being made by the Defendant. It is also clarified
thattheinstant suit has been filed and signed and verified by the
unauthorized persons of the Plaintiff as such the same is not
maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with costs.

XV.[XIV.] It is also stated that levelling of mere false and frivolous

allegations and averments are not permissible under the law. That the
averments and allegations levelled against the Defendant in the plaint
under response are absolutely fallacious, deceptive and untrue, the
demands made by the Plaintiff are unjust and unreasonable, whereas,
the amount demanded by the Plaintiff is unwarranted and unjustified.
Save what is hereinabove expressly admitted, the Defendant deny all
other allegations against it in the plaint.

XVI.[XV.] It is respectfully submitted that the correct position has

been set out hereinabove. Everything stated by the Plaintiff which is
contrary to the same is denied. It is further stated that the Plaintiff is
not entitled to the Judgment and Decree as prayed for in the suit, as
the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with costs. It
is stated that the Defendant had been maliciously and viciously
implicated in a fabricated case which has no legs to stand. So,
appropriate relief should be given to Defendant in this behalf. It is
stated by the Defendant that the Plaintiff has malafidely hatched a
conspiracy against it as well as played fraud and game of cheating
with it, hence, proper legal action should be taken against it.

Page 37 of 40
XVII.[XVI.] That the suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable in the
eye of law, as the same is filed after many years from the date of last
transaction without supporting the duly certified Statement of
Accounts on oath as required under the law. The same is mandatory
requirement of the sub-Section 2 & 3 of Section 9 of the Financial
Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The entries
contained therein are not on daily product basis and, as such, the
charges levied by the Plaintiff are not permitted by law.

PART – IV
PRAYER

In view of the above, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on

behalf of the Defendant that he has made out serious and bonafide
disputes in the instant Application under Section 10 of the Financial
Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 and raised
substantial questions of law as well as questions of facts in respect of
which evidence needs to be recorded and if the instant Application is
not granted as prayed, the Defendant shall be seriously get harmed
and prejudiced and will sustain irretrievable and irremediable loss and
injury. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the Defendant.
Thus, the Defendantislegally entitled for the grant of leave to defend
the suit unconditionally as prayed for.

DEFENDANT

COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT

VERIFICATION

Page 38 of 40
I, _____________ Son of ____________, Muslim, Adult,resident
of_______________________________________, do hereby
solemnly affirm on oath and submit as under:

1. That I am the Defendant in the above suit,as such, am fully

conversant with all the material facts of the matter.

2. That whatever has been stated herein above is true and

correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and the
advice received which I believe to be true.

3. That nothing is submitted by the Defendant herein is either

erroneous or misleading and the Defendant has a good primafacie
case.

DEPONENT

The deponent is identified by me.

ADVOCATE

Sworn on oath before me on this ____ day of August,2023 at Karachi by

the Deponent named above who is identified to me by Mr. Abdul
Qayyum Khan Abbasi, Advocate, who is known to me personally.

COMMISSIONER FOR TAKING AFFIDAVIT

Documents filed:

Documents relied upon: Copies of other documents, related to this

case original of which are with the Plaintiff.

Address of the Defendant As given in the title of the plaint.

for service.

Address of the Advocate for ABDUL QAYYUM ABBASI

Defendant: A.Q. Abbasi & Associates
House No.C-27/1, Opp. China Consulate,
Near Dolmen Mall,
Block 4, Clifton, Karachi

Page 39 of 40
 Registration #: Advo-7342-SBC-KHI
Ph: 021 35876526–Fax 021 35836512
Cell #: 0314-2102555
E-Mail: [email protected]
[email protected]
Web: www.aqabassi.com
Settled by me

COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT

Page 40 of 40