MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---All these appeals R.F.A. No.92 of 2003, R.F.A. No.93 of 2003, R.F.A. No.351 of 2003 and R.F.A. No.398 of 2003 are being disposed of together, as the appeals R.F.A. No.92 of 2003, R.F.A. No.93 of 2003 and R.F.A. No.351 of 2003, have arisen out of the same judgment and decree. The captioned appeal R.F.A. No.92 of 2003 has been filed by the respondent Messrs Atlas Lease Limited being aggrieved of the less amount of decree awarded, whereas R.F.A. No.93 of 2003 is by defendant No.2, while R.F.A. No.351 of 2003 is by defendants Nos.1, 3 and 4, and R.F.A. No.398 of 2003, arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff Mst. Maqsooda Ijaz against the same corporation connected with the transaction of C.O.Is., which were issued in her name amounting to Rs.10,50,000. These C.O.Is. were for a term of five years and on the maturity date, Mst. Maqsooda Ijaz was entitled 25% mark-up thereupon. The respondent leasing corporation brought a suit for the recovery of an amount of Rs.12,265,738 against the appellants in R.F.A. No.93 of 2003 and R.F.A. No.351 of 2003, in which the said appellants had been sued as principal customers and also guarantors. The learned trial Court has refused the grant of leave to the said defendants, but at the same time, has decreed the suit of the respondent-Corporation to the extent of Rs.71,42,802. Both the sets of the defendants have assailed the judgment and decree.
2. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties have agreed that an interim decree to the tune of Rs.51,18,650 be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants/appellants in R.F.As. Nos.93 and 351 of 2003 and for the remaining three issues i.e. (i)
Whether few of the appellants had already received the amount of Rs.4,79,000 from the respondent leasing corporation through cheques and if such amount is liable to be adjusted from the C.O.Is., which the said appellants claim to be adjustable towards the leasing dues of the respondent/plaintiff; (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances and because of the allegations of the respondent that the machinery leased out, when purchased by the company was over invoiced and resultantly, the .security amount of 10% against both the lease amounts is adjustable or the respondent is entitled to recover the machinery and to return this security amount, should also be a fact on which leave should be granted to the appellants and the Court below shall consider this aspect and give its decisions; (iii) Whether the respondent is entitled to certain other amounts as has been claimed in the plaint and the statement of accounts. The entitlement of the respondent-Corporation obviously shall be determined on the basis of the evidence available or led by the parties.
3. As regards the appeal R.F.A. No.398 of 2003 filed Mst. Maqsooda Ijaz is concerned, because her decretal amount has been adjusted in the interim decreal amount awarded to the respondent through this judgment, therefore, she does not press the decree and concedes for the setting aside of the judgment and decree impugned by the respondent in that appeal. In this view of the matter, this appeal has borne fruits and there remains no issue between the parties involved in the present appeal. However, those highlighted above, shall be resolved by the Banking Court as mentioned earlier on account of the evidence led by the parties. On the satisfaction of the amount of the interim decree, the appellant company shall become entitled to receive from the Superdar the machinery, which has been attached and handed over to him. All these appeals are accordingly disposed of.