' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The respondent-Bank brought a suit for recovery against the appellant before the learned Banking Court-II, Faisalabad, in which the appellant applied for leave to appear and defend. The case was fixed for arguments on the application on 15-3-2001 when the appellant failed to appear and was proceeded against ex parte. The case was fixed for ex parte argument on 16-3-2001, on the main suit, when the appellant moved an application for setting aside of the ex parte proceedings. From the order-sheet it does not transpire if such application was accepted, but in the impugned judgment dated 16-3-2001 it is stated "the application of the defendants accepted and given an opportunity to argue the main case on the date already fixed". Anyhow, it seems that after hearing the parties the application for leave to appear and defend had been dismissed and the suit had been decreed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the case was not fixed for hearing the arguments on the application for leave to appear and defend on 16-3-2001, thus the appellant was deprived of a fair and proper opportunity of hearing. Besides the learned Banking Court had not taken into consideration, the grounds set out in the leave application, the observation that no serious and bona fide dispute has been raised by the appellant is sketchy and without reasons, whereas the compromise between the parties on the basis of which suit had been brought by the respondent was void and this was the key ground of the appellant; but the Banking Court has not at all adverted to this aspect of the matter.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the appellant was not given a fair and proper opportunity of arguing his leave application, as it was not fixed for hearing on 16-3- 2001. Moreover, the grounds set out in the application for leave to appear and defend have not been adverted to by the learned Banking Court, thus the judgment and decree is without sufficient reasons and does not reflect application of mind by the Court to the grounds set out in the leave application therefore, it cannot be sustained. Resultantly, by allowing this appeal, the impugned judgment and decree is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned trial Court for the decision on the leave application of the appellant.