MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---Instant first appeal proceeds against judgment and decree dated 22- 6-2002, whereby the learned Judge Banking Court, Gujranwala, after dismissing appellant's application for leave to defend the suit, passed a decree for the recovery of Rs.5,68,532.90 with costs and cost of funds against the appellants.
2. Precisely stated, facts of the case are that the respondent-Bank filed the suit for recovery of Rs.5,68,532.90, against the appellants, before the learned Judge Banking Court, Gujranwala, asserting therein that the appellants committed default in liquidating the suit amount, which is due. The appellants filed the application seeking leave to defend the suit, inter alia, pleading that the suit is barred by time and the Banking Court has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter, as the transaction, on the basis of which the suit was filed, was undertaken at Sharjah, U.A.E. The learned Judge Banking Court heard the parties and after finding that the appellants failed to raise substantial questions of law and facts, dismissed their leave application and resultantly passed a decree for the recovery of Rs.5,68,532.90 together with costs and cost of funds against the appellants, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 22-6-2002, hence the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that although it was specifically pleaded and argued before the learned Banking. Court that it has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the suit, yet the learned Banking Court, while dismissing their leave application, did not render any findings on the said crucial controversy. Confronted with the said argument, learned counsel for the respondent, after examining the impugned order has not much to say.
4. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the summoned record. We find from the examination of appellant's application, for leave to defend the suit, that it was specifically pleaded in para.3 of the application that the Banking Court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit. It appears appropriate to reproduce para.3 of the application, which reads as follows:-- "The parties are not residing in Pakistan, cause of action arose in Ajman, U.A.E. The defendant has to pay balance amount at Sharjah, because advance was granted by Habib Bank Sharjah, U.A.E. The plaintiff should file the suit in Sharjah, U.A.E. This Court has no jurisdiction to hear this suit."
The respondent-Bank, in its reply to the leave application, maintained that the Banking Court has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Reply of the Bank to the aforesaid para. is reproduced below for ready reference:-- "Denied. Though the documents were accepted at Sharjah, the cause of action arose at Sharjah but the defendant No.2 resides permanently at Sialkot and has left Sharjah leaving behind unsettled liabilities, therefore, this august Court has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the present suit of the plaintiff."
It flows from the above that the plea of jurisdiction raised by the appellants was specifically denied by the A respondent and thus the material controversy between the parties emerged, which was necessarily to be decided by the A learned Banking Court.
5. In the above backdrop, we have perused the impugned judgment in juxtaposition with the said plea of the appellants and find that the learned counsel for the appellants is right in submitting that the learned Banking Court failed to render any findings on the said controversy. The plea of jurisdiction was specifically raised by the appellants in their leave application, which ground was not even adverted to by the learned Banking Court, while deciding appellant's leave application. To our mind, under the facts and circumstances of the case in hand that was the crucial issue to be decided by the learned Banking Court, however, it only after giving findings on the question of limitation, proceeded to dismiss appellant's application. We feel that the learned Banking Court was obliged to give findings on the said controversy, but it has conveniently avoided to give any findings on the said issue. The learned Banking Court expected to have rendered some findings on the said issue. We feel that the learned Banking Court, by not touching the said dispute and altogether ignoring to give any findings on the said issue, has definitely committed grave legal error, and thus the impugned judgment cannot be allowed to be maintained.
6. In the above perspective, we feel that the learned Banking Court has committed glaring illegality, which has in fact prejudiced the case of the appellants. Thus, we are inclined to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remand the case to the learned Banking Court for its fresh decision.
7. Upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree is set aside with no order as to costs. Resultantly, appellant's application for leave to defend the suit and respondent's suit for recovery shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Ranking Court, Gujranwala, who shall, firstly decide appellant's application seeking leave to defend the suit, after hearing the parties and of course in accordance with law and also to decide the suit.
Office is directed to immediately transmit the record of the learned Banking Court.