In the suit of the respondent-Bank for recovery of Rs.4,691,988 along with mark-up, appellant's application for leave to defend the same v.'as dismissed by the learned Judge Banking Court No.II, Multan, and the suit was decreed forthwith as prayed for vide judgment and decree dated 4-10- 2004. Hence this appeal under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances)
Ordinance, 2001, is directed against the same.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. Availing of the facility of loan in question has not b( n denied by the appellants. The only ground vehemently urged by the learned counsel is to the effect that stock of the appellants pledged with the respondent-Bank lying in the godown was stolen/misappropriated at the instance of the Manager of the respondent-Bank. On a Court question it is conceded that a criminal case has been registered qua the said occurrence wherein the appellants have been nominated as accused and they are on bail. This plea with reference to the institution of criminal case cannot be advantageously used by the appellants with reference to the recovery of the amount in question through the suit of the respondent-Bank which has been decreed vide impugned judgment and decree.
4. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the appellants were quite lethargic and indolent towards pursuing their application for leave to defend the suit which otherwise did not disclose any triable issue and the learned trial Court did examine the matter in its true perspective with reference to the material available on the file, thus rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree and no exception with regard thereto can be taken in this appeal and the same stands dismissed, leaving the parties to pay their own costs.
5. However, on a Court question, the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the house of the appellants shown to be mortgaged with the respondent-Bank shall not be put to auction and the decretal amount will be firstly attempted to be realized from auctioning the other property of the appellants duly mortgaged with the respondent-Bank. In case the decretal amount is not satisfied from auctioning the other property of the appellants mortgaged with the respondent-Bank, then and then only house in question of the appellants shall be put to auction.
This statement shall also form a part of this order.