' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.---On 21-11-2005, the suit for recovery instituted by respondent No,1, was decreed ex parte, which has been assailed through this appeal under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001.
2. Since the parties are duly represented by their learned counsel, they have been heard in the matter.
3. In order to explain the absence on 21-11-2005 the learned counsel has brought on record the copy of the order sheet and endeavoured to show that the application for leave could not be dismissed for non-prosecution nor the resultant decree (ex parte) could be passed. In view of the proceedings reflected from the interim orders as also the contents of affidavit of Rana Abdul Majid Khan, Advocate, we are inclined to accept the contention and the explanation that the learned.
Banking Court could have granted at least one adjournment instead of dismissing the application for leave for non-prosecution. We, however, cannot overlook and ignore the aspect that the suit has remained pending since long and thus would impose costs of Rs:50,000 subject to the payment of which the order dismissing P.L.A. And consequential decree dated 21-11-2005 is set aside. The parties will cause their presence before the learned Banking Court on 22-5-2006, on which date the costs will be paid and the learned Banking Court will proceed further in the matter and decide the same within two months as suggested and agreed by the learned counsel for the parties.
' The appeal is accepted to this extent and disposed of accordingly.