MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.---The appellants instituted a suit seeking a declaration against the respondents to the effect that they had not taken any loan and any entry in this regard in the bank record was liable to be ignored as being based on forgery and fraud. Their plaint was rejected by the learned Judge Banking Court No.II, Multan, vide judgment dated 21-5-2002. Hence this appeal under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, is directed against the same.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. The learned trial Court rejected plaint of the appellants on the ground that their earlier suit on the same cause of action had already been dismissed and this fact was concealed in the present suit, but it was not noticed at all that this fact was also mentioned in the plaint, wherein it was categorically averred that earlier suit of the appellants was dismissed for non-prosecution at the stage when the respondents were not even summoned.
4. It is stated in Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C.:-- (a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) Where the relief claimed is under-valued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, I ls to do so;
(c) Where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.
5. Seen in the context of Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., plaint of the appellant's prima facie did disclose a cause of action, thus the said provision of law could not have been applied to the same. This being so the rejection of the plaint by the learned trial Court vide the impugned judgment cannot be blessed with legal sanctity and this appeal is allowed by setting aside the same and the case is remanded to the learned trial Court for onward disposal in accordance with law. It is also directed that the matter shall be decided expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the next date of the appearance of the parties. Record be immediately sent back to the learned trial Court.