' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---Appellants/judgmentdebtors, through the present appeal, filed under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as Ordinance, 2001), have challenged the legality and validity of judgment and decree dated 29-5-2002, whereby the learned Judge Banking Court, after dismissing appellants' application for leave to defend the suit, proceeded to pass a decree for the recovery of Rs,3,54,65,871.21 with costs and mark-up favouring the respondent-Bank.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that the respondent-Bank filed the suit for recovery of Rs, 3,54,65,871.21, against the appellants, pleading therein that in the year 1996 certain financial facilities were sanctioned at the request of the previous management of appellant No,1; the previous management was later on substituted by the appellants Nos.2 and 3, who accepted the liabilities of the outgoing management; at the request of the appellants, financial facilities were enhanced and ultimately the appellants failed to liquidate the outstanding liabilities, which necessitated filing of the suit. The appellants filed the application seeking leave to defend the suit, wherein besides taking legal objections, it was asserted that the pledged goods valuing Rs,10.230 million are in possession of the respondent-Bank, which failed to sell the pledged goods, despite the fact that it was demanded by the appellants. The learned Judge Banking Court after hearing the parties dismissed the said application on the ground that the defendants have not been able to make out a case for the grant of leave to defend and pursuant thereto, proceeded to pass a decree for the recovery of Rs,3,54,65,871.21 with costs and mark-up, vide impugned judgment arid decree dated 29-5-2002, hence the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants, while reiterating the contentions, as incorporated in their leave application qua the pledged goods, states that the respondent-Bank is in possession of the pledged goods and that despite order of the learned Judge Banking Court for the sale of pledged goods, outcome whereof is not known. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and decree.
4. We have heard the learned counsel and examined the available record. The appellants in their application for leave to defend the suit, besides taking other objections, specifically pleaded that the Bank is in possession of the pledged goods, the value of which was assessed by the Bank Engineers, as Rs,10.230 millions and that despite repeated requests of the defendants, the Bank failed to sell the pledged goods with the result that on the one hand the outstanding liabilities against the appellants accumulated and on the other hand the business of the appellants suffered serious set back. In reply to the said contents of the application, the respondent-Bank admitted that the value of the pledged goods is approximately Rs,1,23,97,075. It appears appropriate to reproduced para.5 of the reply filed by the respondent-Bank to the appellants' leave application:-- ' Pledged Stock {{URDU TEXT}} ' Pledged Stock {{URDU TEXT}} Pledged Stock 4,{{URDU TEXT}} ' The learned learned Banking Court, on an application filed by the respondent-Bank, on 13-3-2002, appointed the Local Commission for preparation of inventory of the pledged goods and the Local Commission, on 26-4-2002, submitted his inventory report. On the same day, the learned counsel for the appellants stated that he has no objection, if the pledged goods are sold. It appears appropriate at this stage to reproduced order dated 26-4-2002, which reads as follows:-- "26-4-2002 ' Present: Counsel for the plaintiff.
Counsel for the defendants.
' Inventory report has been submitted by the Local Commission. Learned counsel for the defendants has no objection, if the plaintiff proceeds for the sale of the pledged goods, as such petition of the plaintiff is accepted.
' To come up for arguments on the petition for leave to defend on 10-5-2002.
(Sd.)
Judge B.C.I., Lahore."
5. It flows from the above narrative that in fact certain goods were pledged by the appellants, the inventory of which was prepared by the learned Local Commission, under the directions of the learned Judge Banking Court, and after the receipt of the inventory report, the appellants suggested for the sale of the pledged goods, however, the learned Judge Banking Court, without deciding the fate of the pledged goods or/and putting them to auction/sale, proceeded to decide the suit in complete oblivion of the facts of the case and law on the subject. Subsequent to order dated 26-4-2002, the learned Banking Court did not pass any order either for the sale of the pledged goods or in respect of those goods. The learned Judge, after undertaking the exercise of got preparing the inventory of goods, ought to have put the pledged goods for sale or at least, after order dated 26-4-2002, some order regarding the pledged goods, should have been passed.
We have also noticed from the impugned judgment that although the plea regarding the pledged goods was agitated by the appellants before the learned Banking Court, but it was neither dealt with nor decided nor there is any mention in the order dated 26-4-2002, regarding the pledged goods. The learned Banking Court has completely black out the matter regarding the pledged goods on which, primarily the case of the appellants hinges. This is sufficient to show the casual and perfunctory approach of the learned Court and its non-application of judicial mind while deciding the valuable rights of the parties. The learned Banking Court, in the circumstances was obliged to pass an effective order regarding the fate of the pledged goods, but the learned Banking Court, while bypassing the said crucial issue, proceeded to dismiss the application, which to our mind, discloses serious and bona fide disputes between the parties. Now more than 3-1/2 years have elapsed, since order dated 26-4-2002 was passed, and during all this period the condition of the goods must have deteriorated and value whereof has been depreciated. Had the learned Banking Court applied its judicial mind and at least attended to its own order sheet, both the parties would have been saved from suffering losses as in case of sale of pledged goods, the liabilities of the appellants would have definitely reduced and on the other hand the Bank would have got at least some portion out of the suit amount.
6. There is another aspect of the case. Examination of the impugned judgment manifests that the same is perfunctory, slipshod and devoid of reasons inasmuch as the learned Banking Court completely failed to attend to the crucial aspects of the case and it, only on the basis that the defendants have admitted the transactions, dismissed the appellants' application for leave to defend the suit. Such-like orders, passed by the Judicial Officer, in this casual and cursory manner, while deciding the valuable rights of the parties, involving a colossal amount, cannot be countenanced under any stretch of imagination. Even it has been enjoined upon an executive authority, as per section 24-A of General Clauses Act, 1897 (inserted by General Clauses (Amendment) Act, 1997, Act No,XI of 1997)) to give reasons for making the order.
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has time and again disapproved passing of such perfunctory orders. It is settled law that "judicial order" must be speaking order manifesting by itself that the Court has applied its judicial mind to the issues and points of controversy involved in the causes. In any way the impugned order, which is not a speaking order and devoid of reasons is not sustainable in law being in contravention of law declared by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in various cases.
8. In the above perspective, we have examined the impugned judgment and are of the view that the learned Banking Court while rendering the impugned judgment, has completely misdirected itself and failed to decide the crucial questions between the parties and decided the case only for the purpose of disposal. Such an action on the part of the judicial officer cannot be appreciated.
We are persuaded to interfere in the matter and inclined to set aside the same and remand the case to the learned Banking Court.
9. Upshot of the above discussion is that the present appeal is decided in the following terms:--
(i) Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 29-5-2002 is set aside.
(ii) Suit filed by the respondent-Bank and appellants' application for leave to defend shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Banking Court, who shall decide the same afresh after hearing the parties and of course in accordance with law.
(iii) Learned Banking Court on the first date of hearing in view of order dated 26-4-2002 shall immediately take appropriate action for the sale/auction of the pledged goods.
(iv) No order as to costs.