Respondent No.1, brought a suit for recovery, against the appellants before the learned Banking Court at Lahore, which was ex parte decreed on 4-12-2001; the appellants moved an application under section 12 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, for setting aside of the ex parte decree, which was fixed for hearing on 31-7-2003. However, on that date, the learned Judge was on leave and the Reader of the Court, adjourned the matter for 6-9-2003, but erroneously, on this day, the date of the order mentioned is 31-7-2003, and as none represented the appellants, therefore, the learned Banking Court was pleased to dismiss their application under section 12. However, the appellants moved an application for the restoration of this application, which has been dismissed through the impugned order.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that 6-9-2003, was not the date of hearing in the matter, because the case from 31-7-2003 to 6-9-2003, was not adjourned by the Court, rather the Court was on leave and under the law the Reader could not fix the matter for hearing on 6-9-2003.
3. Heard. The above plea is absolutely correct, because the case for a particular proceeding could either be fixed by the Court itself or any Duty Judge and the Reader under the C.P.C. or the Special Law, has no power to adjourn the case for any particular purpose. Therefore, 6-9-2003, was not a date of hearing upon the application under section 12, which could not be dismissed for non- prosecution. Resultantly by allowing this appeal, the impugned order is set aside; the application of the appellants for restoration of the application under section 12 is allowed and the application under section 12 shall be deemed pending, which shall be decided by the learned Banking Court in accordance with law.