MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.-- Primarily, being aggrieved of the action of the respondent-Bank under section 15 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, putting the property of the appellant on sale, the appellant: had instituted the suit, seeking declaration, in, which, the transaction/certain agreements, were sought to be declared as null and void. In the suit, the respondent-Bank, filed leave application, which was allowed and the preliminary issue with regard to the maintainability of the suit was framed. The learned Banking Court. dilating on this, has rejected the plaint of the appellant, primarily on the ground that, earlier the appellant had filed a suit of the same nature, in which the relief of the declaration sought in the present matter, was not claimed, though available to him even at that time, therefore, the second suit was barred under the provisions of Order II, rule 2, C.P.C., hence this appeal.
2. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank states that the respondent-Bank has also filed a suit against the appellant for the recovery of its dues and that, the respondent- Bank shall not invoke and pursue the provisions of section 15 of the Ordinance, 2001. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the appellant, seeks permission of the Court to allow the withdrawal of the suit, as he states that, in the suit filed by the respondent-Bank, the appellant has already filed the leave application, in which, all the points raised in the suit, have been taken in defence and shall be the subject of determination in these proceedings.
3. In the light of the above, by disposing of this appeal we allow the withdrawal of the suit by the appellant, which is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. It may however, be observed that, if the grounds set out in the plaint of the appellant are the part of the grounds of the leave application, the learned trial Court shall consider the pleas independent to any observation, made in the order under challenge before this Court.