MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J. - - --On 20-12-1988, respondent-Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs.
1,45,075.14 against the appellants. According to the plaint, the appellant No.2 is the sole proprietor of appellant No.1 and an account was opened in the said business name. A running finance facility limit of Rs.2,00,000 was also allowed against the securities mentioned in paras.5, 6 and 7 of the plaint. This finance was to be adjusted on or before 3-9-1986 but it has not been paid and the suit amount is due. In the first instance an ex parte decree was passed on 14-2-1989. An application for setting aside of ex parte decree was dismissed on 3-11-1994. However, an F.A.O. No.11 of 1995 filed by the appellant was allowed by this Court on 13- 5-1999 and the case was remanded back for fresh decision of the said application. The decree was ultimately set aside on 3-4-2000. The appellant then filed an application for leave to defend the suit. Appellant No.2 objected that she had been wrongly described as wife of one Maqbool whereas she is unmarried. According to her, the entire amount of loan was adjusted. She then stated in detail that the Bank officers mentioned in the plaint used to take commission from her upon release of every consignment and on one occasion she failed to oblige them and they got a criminal case registered against her and got her arrested on 16-12-1985 under sections 420/406/506, P.P.C. and M.L.O. No.77 of 1986, registered vide F.I.R. No.530, Police Station, Mozang, Lahore. Learned Judge, Special Court, (Offences in Banks), Lahore held that no case stands' made out and acquitted the appellant No.2 under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. vide order dated 31-1-1996. Her precise plea was that while the said case had been registered there was no occasion for Bank to have further allowed overdraft facility and she accordingly questioned the entries in the statement of accounts. This application was replied by the respondent-Bank. Learned Judge, Banking Court No.II, Lahore dismissed the application and decreed the suit as prayed for vide judgment and decree dated 13-9-2000.
2. The appellant in person has reiterated the grounds taken by her in her said application referred to by us above.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has tried to support the impugned judgment and decree.
4. We have examined the trial Court records with the assistance of the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. Now the respondent-Bank had appended statement of accounts with its plaint.
It is present at pages 49 to 53 of the trial Court file. We do find that on 30-10-1985 Rs.2,00,000 were released as an overdraft. Thereafter balance remained in debit till 5-1-1986. On 9-1-1986, a sum of Rs.5,00,000 was credited and then on the said date a sum of Rs.770,884.80 was credited making credit balance of Rs.10,729,92.86. It was, thereafter that debit entry of Rs.1,350,122 was made making a debit balance of Rs.277,129.14. Final figures shown in this statement of account is the said suit amount.
5. Now the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment which is rather sketchy proceeded to throw aside the grounds in the application for leave to appeal and has apparently not even glanced at the said statement of account. He has referred to the said overdraft of Rs.2,00,000 and then has proceeded to observe that there is no proof regarding adjustment of finance facility whereas the said statement of accounts itself goes to show that a facility stood adjusted on 9-1- 1986 and credit balance was recorded in the statement of the accounts. Because of non-reading of the statement of accounts, learned trial Court has brushed aside the very serious allegation supported by judicial records made in the said application for leave to defend by the appellant.
Had the learned trial Court examined the said statement of accounts it was bound to call upon the bank to explain as to how an over draft was given after adjustment of the earlier facility to the appellant against whom a case had been registered a few days earlier by the same officer who had made entries in the statement accusing her of fraud and misappropriation. We leave the matters here lest it may prejudice any of the parties in the trial.
6. R.F.A. is accordingly allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 13-9-2000 passed by the learned Judge, Banking Court-II, Lahore is set aside. We grant leave to defend to the appellants who shall accordingly file their written statement. A copy of this judgment along with trial Court records be immediately remitted to the said Court who shall summon the parties . and proceed further accordingly.
7. No orders as to costs.