MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---Present first appeal by the appellants/judgment-debtors proceeds against the judgment and decree dated 4-5-2001, whereby the learned Banking Court, after dismissing appellant's application for leave to defend the suit, passed the decree for recovery of Rs.59,63,932.47 with costs along with mark-up till the realization of the decretal amount, jointly and severally, against the appellants.
2. Precisely, stated the facts of the case are that on 8-8-2000, the respondent-Bank filed the suit for recovery of Rs.59,63,932.47, against the appellants, inter alia, pleading that on the request of defendant No.2, the Bank sanctioned running finance facility, which was to be repaid along with mark-up at the rate of 61 Paisa per thousand per day; the defendants availed the said facility; executed the documents mentioned in the plaint; defendant No.2 stood guarantor and failure of the defendants to liquidate the outstanding liabilities necessitated the filing of the suit. The appellants, on 27-9-2000, submitted the application for leave to defend the suit averring therein that both the finance agreements dated 1-8-1994 and 24-10-1994 are fictitious and fake; though the said agreements are fake, yet an amount of Rs.50,00,000 was paid and financial facility was cleared by the defendants on 16-9-1996; not a single penny is outstanding against the defendants and that the agreement to pay mark-up is against the Injunction of Islam. The appellants also questioned the validity of the statement of accounts. The learned Banking Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed appellant's leave application and proceeded to decree the suit for recovery of Rs.59,63,932.47, together with costs and future mark-up against the appellants, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 4-5-2001, hence the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants, while referring to orders dated 6-3-2002, 14-6-2004 and 22- 12-2004, passed in the appeal in hand, has submitted that the suit could not have been decreed on the basis of the statement of accounts, annexed with the plaint, that there was no sanction advice available on record and that the appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.71,40,285 (decretal amount of Rs.59,63,932.47 + 5% of the bid money) with the Banking Court. He has further submitted that the respondent-Bank, under the directions of this Court, has brought on record certain documents, which were not filed before the Banking Court along with the suit. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent, while refuting the aforenoted contentions, has submitted that the appellants took contradictory stand in their leave application, as on the one hand they denied the execution of the agreements of mark-up and on the other hand claimed that outstanding amount was repaid. He has added that the impugned decree stood satisfied, as the appellants deposited the decretal amount of Rs.59,63,932.47 with the Judge Banking Court, which is still lying with the Court. Appellant No.2 states that the amount, deposited by him, has not been withdrawn either by him or the Bank.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record. We find from the perusal of appellant's application for leave to defend the suit that they have specifically challenged the authenticity and validity of two finance agreements dated 1-8-1994 and 24-10-1994 and labelled the same as bogus and forged; besides alleging that the documents, annexed with the plaint, are forged and fictitious. They have also pleaded that an amount of Rs.50,00,000 was repaid by them and that the statement of accounts is incorrect. The learned Banking Court, without dealing with all the pleas raised on behalf of the appellants and only after discussing and dealing with two finance agreements, that too in a summary and cursory manner, held that "very contention that finance agreement is false and fabricated does not create any confidence in the given circumstances of the case". To our mind, the learned Banking Court was obliged, under the law, to deal and decide the pleas raised by the appellants before it and decided the matter through a reasoned judgment. Even it has been enjoined upon an executive authority, as per section 24(A) of General Clauses Act, 1897 (inserted by General Clauses (Amendment Act, 1997, Act No.XI of 1997)) to give reasons for making the order.
5. We find from the record of the appeal that the respondent-Bank placed on record certain documents, including the approval of letters of finance, sanction advises and complete statement of accounts, which documents were obviously not submitted before the learned Banking Court. The learned counsel for the appellants has rightly invited the attention of this Court to order dated 6-3- 2002, whereby this Court, after examining the statement of accounts, appended with the plaint, directed the. respondent-Bank to produce relevant documents on file. It appears that pursuant to the said directions, the respondent-Bank placed on record additional documents, as noted above.
Additionally, this Court, after examining buy back agreements (already on record) directed the respondent-Bank to produce all the other agreements entered between the parties. The appellants and the Banking Court, while deciding appellant's application seeking leave to defend the suit, were deprived of the examination of all those documents at the appropriate stage. If these documents were before the learned Banking Court, it is possible that the Banking Court might be persuaded to grant the appellants leave to defend the suit. It flows therefrom that the respondent- Bank, at the time of filing of the suit, did not properly documented the suit and failed to file the documents in support of its plaint. Had those documents been on record, the fate of appellant's application and the suit might have been different.
6. In the above perspective, we have examined the impugned judgment and find that it was rendered in complete oblivion of the relevant documents, which the respondent-Bank failed to place before the learned Banking Court and those saw light of the day, when this Court directed to produce the same, therefore, we are inclined to set aside the impugned decree.
7. As regards the deposit of sum of Rs.59,63,932.47, the same shall remain deposit with the Banking Court, who at the time of re-deciding appellant's application for leave to defend the suit, in its discretion, may consider that amount as security for the grant of leave to defend the suit.
8. Upshot of the above discussion is that the present appeal is decided in the following terms:--
(i) The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 4-5-2001 are set aside.
(ii) Resultantly, appellant's application seeking leave to defend the suit and respondent-Bank's suit shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Banking Court.
(iii) Respondent-Bank is directed to file additional documents, including copies of those documents, which were placed on record by the respondent-Bank, in appeal, before the Banking Court.
(iv) Appellants are also permitted to place on record documents, if they so advised.
(v) The learned Banking Court shall decide appellant's leave application, afresh, after hearing the parties and of course in accordance with law and while deciding the said application may consider the security of cash deposit of Rs.59,63,932.47, already lying with it, without being impressed by any of the observations made by this Court.
(vi) After the acceptance or dismissal of appellants Lave application, as the case may be, the learned Banking Court shall re-decide bank's suit in accordance with law.
(vii) The parties are directed to appear, on 15-4-2005, before the Administrative Judge Banking Court, Lahore, who may hear the case himself or entrust the same to another Banking Court according to his own administrative arrangements.
(viii) No order as to costs.