MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The respondent-Bank brought a suit for recovery of Rs.4,97,066 against the appellant on account of agricultural loan, granted to the appellant in the year, 2000. The appellant filed an application for leave to defend the suit, inter alia, raising plea of limitation. This application has been rejected and by refusing said application, the suit to the tune of Rs.4,97,066 has been decreed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the suit was admittedly barred by time. Even by following the provisions of section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances)-Ordinance, 2001. the period of limitation was at the best three years, but the suit had not been filed before the expiry of said period.A
3. When confronted with the above, the learned counsel for the respondent has referred to Article 132(c) of Limitation Act and submits that where immovable property is charged by way of the deposit of title documents with the object to enforce the payment of money the limitation is 12 years. He further submits that respondent-Bank had sanctioned the loan of the appellant on the deposit of Agricultural Pass Book.
4. We have heard the counsel for the parties and find that the Pass Book are not the title documents of the nature envisaged in Article 132 so as to attract the said provision. As such we find that the appellant had raised a substantial question of law and fact i.e. limitation, therefore, for the determination of this, was entitled to the grant of leave. So this, appeal is accepted and by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree, we grant leave to appear and defend the suit and allow the appellant to file written statement within a period of one month; the case is remanded to the Banking Court to re-decide the same in accordance with law.
No order as to costs.