MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---Respondent-Bank brought a suit for recovery inter alia against the appellants, which was ex parte decreed on 16-4-2002; the appellants thereafter, moved an application under section 12 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, claiming that they were neither the loanees, guarantors nor mortgagers because the property which is already shown to have been as mortgaged by them, as sureties/mortgagers, was not owned by the appellants at the time, when the alleged mortgage is claimed to have been created, because they have already sold the mortgaged property and the documents in this behalf were forged by respondent No.2, who though earlier had the power of attorney, but because of the sale of the entire property by the appellant, such power of attorney by the accomplishment of the job, stood cancelled.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that this absolutely is incorrect; respondent No.3, had the valid power of attorney, which was intact at the time of creation of mortgage and the appellants were also the owners to the extent of 2 Marlas of the said property.
3.Be that as it may, this requires evidence, whether the appellants were the owners to the extent of 2 Marlas or otherwise, and therefore, the property on their behalf, could be mortgaged by respondent No.2, but learned Court below without framing of issues and holding trial in this behalf, has summarily rejected the application which order to our mind was not in consonance with law, resultantly, by allowing this appeal, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the Court below for decision afresh upon the application of the appellants under section 12 by