MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The instant R.F.A. No.607 of 2002 as also R.F.A. No.704 of 2002, are being disposed of together, as both have arisen out of the same suit, filed by the respondent-Bank, inter alia against the appellants.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the respondent-Bank brought a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.27275618.83 against the appellants and others, which was earlier decreed by the learned Banking Court vide judgment and decree dated 15-11-1999; however, this decree was challenged by the defendants in R.F.A. No.314 of 1999; this appeal was partly accepted to the extent of Khiali Paper & Board Mills, Ch. Muhammad Hussain (appellant) and Mst. Nasim Akhtar; the case was remanded to the learned Banking Court for deciding their leave applications; on remand, the application filed by the present appellant for leave to appear and defend has been dismissed with the result that, the suit has been jointly and severally decreed against the said appellant; challenged through the present appeal (R.F.A. No.607 of 2002).
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that, there were substantial issues of facts and raised in the leave application, which necessitated the framing of issues and holding of the trial.
4. When confronted to show the substantial points, raised in the leave application, reference has been made to ground (c). We are afraid that, the same cannot be read in isolation, rather it must be read With the other grounds, particularly ground (b), in which, the appellant had acknowledged/accepted that the finance was availed by the company Khiali Paper & Board Mills and also by the Directors, which obviously includes the appellant as well. Besides, in paragraphs Nos.4 and 10 of the plaint, it has been stated by the respondent-Bank that the appellant was guarantor for the repayment of the aforesaid loan and there is no denial in the leave application, if such guarantee document has not been executed by the appellant. Resultantly, we do not find any substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was a sleeping partner and was unaware of the fact, as to how and who availed the finance, therefore, his application for leave to appear and defend has been rightly rejected by the learned Court below and suit has been decreed to that extent. R.F.A. No.607 of 2002 is accordingly dismissed.
5. As far as the other appeal R.F.A. No.704 of 2002 is concerned, the leave application of the appellants was pending for hearing on 30-3-2002, when due to non-appearance of the counsel for the appellants, the application was dismissed and the learned Court below passed the decree.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that, instead of decreeing the suit straightaway, at least an opportunity should have been provided to the appellants to contest the matter on merits and decree should not have been passed as a matter of course, without adverting to the record and looking into the defence of the appellant, if the suit should have been decreed or otherwise. In any case, the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has no objection, if the decree is set aside to the extent of the present appellants. But states that, a time frame be fixed for the decision of their application. Resultantly, by allowing this appeal and setting aside the impugned judgment to the extent of the present appellants. we direct the parties to appear before the learned Banking Court on 13-12-2003. The application shall be heard and decided within 15 days thereafter positively under intimation to the Deputy Register (Judi.) of this Court. The record of the cast. be immediately sent back to the learned Banking Court.