1. For purposes of ensuring certain payment to the Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd, hereinafter to be referred as S.N.G.P.L., on behalf of the appellant, the respondent-Bank had issued four guarantees, details thereof finds mention in the plaint. Subsequently, the S.N.G.P.L. vide letter dated 18-9.2000 sought the enforcement of the guarantee, but for certain reason, the matter remained pending with the respondent-Bank when ultimately these guarantees were encashed and the amount covered by those guarantees, was paid to the S.N.G.P.L., thereafter in order to recover the said amount, the bank brought a suit against the appellant before the Banking Court at Gujranwala, in which, the appellant moved an application for leave to appear and defend, but without any success and his application was dismissed through the impugned judgment and decree.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated that the guarantees had expired much before the claim was lodged by the S.N.G.P.L., and therefore, the respondent-Bank illegally and unauthorizedly had encashed those guarantees. In this regard, he has referred to paragraph 14 of the plaint and submitted that guarantees in 51/07, 51/02 and 51/76 had expired somewhere in the year 2001, and even considering the claim lodging date, the guarantees are said to have been enforced thereafter on 20-11-2002 and 13-12-2002.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that S.N.G.P.L. in fact had claimed the encashment of the guarantees vide letter dated 18-9-2000. However, the matter remained pending for the reason stated in the plaint for some time and ultimately the bank was constrained to encash those guarantees because such contract was independent in nature and the Bank under the terms of the guarantee was obliged to enforce the same irrespective of the fact that there was any dispute between the appellant and the S.N.G.P.L. Resultantly, the claim of the S.N.G.P.L. having been encashed within the period/life of the 'guarantee and even the claim lodging date.
4. In view of the above, we find that no illegality has been committed by the Court below in refusing to the grant of leave to appear and defend to the appellant, and the judgment and decree has been rightly passed therefore, this appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed accordingly.