' During the course of hearing learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that according to the claim of the Bank as set out in the plaint a decree for an amount of Rs.21,72,107.00 was sought but the Banking Court without adverting to the claim in the plaint has granted a decree for an amount of Rs.1,07,98,396.00. In this manner the learned Banking Court has passed a decree for an amount in Excess than the Bank has claimed in the plaint, thus is void. Confronted with the above learned counsel for the responden -Bank stated that the appellants in fact have played fraud and have interpolated the record by inserting except the first, the remaining pages of the plaint pertaining to another case of Iqbal Cloth House, which suit was filed by the same learned counsel and of the same branch of the Bank before the same Banking Court. The learned counsel for the respondent has asserted that the claim of the Bank was exactly the same which has been decreed.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we find necessary that the learned Banking Court must hold appropriate enquiry, for ascertaining whether the pages of the plaint in the present case have been changed. Let the original record of the case be sent to the learned Judge Banking Court who shall submit a report within a period of one month from the date of transmission of record. The original record shall also be returned to this Court alongwith the report.