' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Petitioners have sought leave to appeal against judgment dated 18-5-2000 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby appeal filed by them against the order/decree of Banking Court-II, Lahore dated 11-11-1998 has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stating facts of the case are that petitioners availed facility of Letter of Credits in the sum of Rs,3,00,000 from the respondent/decree-holder bank. Statedly petitioners availed the facility but did not discharge its liability, as such a suit for recovery of Rs,22,12,374 was filed before the Banking Court. Petitioners filed application for leave to appear and defend the suit wherein claim of respondent regarding availing the financial facility was not denied. Learned trial Court decreed the suit on 11-11-1998. As such R.F.A. No,489 of 1998 was filed by the petitioners which had been dismissed.
3. Learned counsel contended that during pendency of the suit petitioners imported raw material which was received by the bank in its godowns but its delivery was not permitted by the bank although petitioners had already paid custom duty on it, therefore, petitioners incurred loss of Rs,30,25,000 as such against this amount the Bank had no jurisdiction to file suit for recovery of Rs,22,12,374, hence the suit was liable to be dismissed.
4. In the course of arguments we have perused the written statement filed by the petitioners before the Banking Court which was in fact treated as an application for 'leave to appear and defend wherein liability towards outstanding amount of the respondent-Bank was not denied except raising the plea that the bank has retained the goods of the petitioners unauthorisedly. In our opinion it does not constitute a defence in favour of the petitioners independently nor it give rise to a bona fide dispute between the parties because in such-like cases the Court is required to examine the liability and its acceptance by the borrower. As far as 'question of sustaining losses by the borrower on account of conduct of the bank is concerned it A can be sorted out in some other forum instead of claim relief on such basis from the Banking Court. A Banking Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 10 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 can only entertain defence of the borrower if prima facie a bona fide dispute has been disclosed. Since in the instant case the petitioners have not denied their liability towards the respondent, therefore, the trial Court had rightly passed the impugned order which was maintained by learned High Court vide impugned judgment in pursuance whereof relief was also given to petitioners for getting released goods imported by them subject to depositing decretal amount within one month after passing of the order alternatively holding that on expiry of said period it shall be open for the respondent to dispose of the goods for partial satisfaction of the decree.
' Thus for the foregoing reasons petition being without force is dismissed and leave declined: