' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.--Present appeal filed by the appellants/judgment-debtors, proceeds against order, dated 12-4-2005, whereby the learned Judge, Banking Court dismissed appellants application for settlement of the matter as per terms of Circular No,29, issued by the State Bank of Pakistan.
2. Facts of the case, relevant for the decision of the present appeal, are that the learned Judge, Banking Court, Lahore passed a decree, dated 19-11-2001, for a sum of Rs, 10,857,657.89 against the appellants, which was challenged in appeal (R.F.A. No,63 of 2002) before this Court. The said appeal was accepted, subject to the payment of principal amount of Rs,6.2 Million by the appellants and thereupon they were to be granted leave to defend the suit. However, the said amount was not deposited by the appellants. Decreeholder/respondent-Bank initiated the execution proceedings. The appellants filed the application, seeking directions of the learned Banking Court that bank should decide appellants pending application, filed under B.P.D. Circular No,29, which was opposed by the respondent-Bank and ultimately the said application was dismissed on 23-2-2005. The appellants assailed the said order, through filing the appeal (E.F.A.
No,76 of 2005), before this Court, however, the same was withdrawn in order to file objection petition under sections 15 and 19(7) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001.
Subsequently, the appellants filed the objection petition, Under the aforesaid provision of law, which was resisted by the respondent-Bank and ultimately the learned Banking Court dismissed the said application, vide impugned order, dated 12-4-2005, hence the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned Executing Court did not attend to the points/issues involved in the case and proceeded to dismiss the same on extraneous consideration. He has added that the impugned order is devoid of reasons. Contrarily, the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has vehemently submitted that appellants failed to deposit a sum of Rs,62,24,025, as ordered by this Court. He has added that previously appellants application on elle same subject-matter was dismissed by the learned Banking Court and the appeal, filed by the appellants, was withdrawn by the appellants, therefore, the present appeal cannot proceed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record. The only ground, which persuaded the learned Judge Banking Court for dismissing appellants' application, is that despite direction of this Court, the appellants failed to deposit a sum of Rs,62,24,025 and their leave application was dismissed. Suffice it to say that the said ground is hardly sufficient to knock out the appellants and for dismissal of their application, which has to be decided on its own merits. If the appellants did not comply with the terms of the order of this Court and failed to deposit the requisite amount, they have faced the consequences, as their leave application was disallowed, but in no way, on the basis of said non-deposit, appellants' objection petition could be dismissed.
5. We have examined appellants' application and find that they have specifically pleaded that their case falls under BPD Circular No,29, issued by the State Bank of Pakistan and the said Circular has force of law. However, no findings on this crucial controversy are forthcoming from the impugned order, inasmuch as the case of Hashwani Hotels Limited v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1997 SC 315 has not )een mentioned in the impugned order. The learned Judge, Banking Court was obliged, under the law, to at least give some findings on the controversies raised in the objection petition. Learned Judge, Banking Court did not advert to any of the controversies raised by the parties and issued involved in the case and proceeded to dismiss the objection petition with an additional ground that the judgment-debtors are prolonging the matter in execution of decree.
The learned counsel for the appellants is right in submitting that the impugned order is devoid of reasons.
6. In the above perspective, we have examined the impugned order and find that the same is not sustainable in law and we are persuaded to set it aside.
7. Upshot of the above discussion is that the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order, dated 12-4-2005 is set aside with no order as to costs. Resultantly, appellants' objection petition under sections 15(11) and 19(7) of Ordinance, 2001 shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Judge, Banking Court, who shall decide the same after hearing the parties and of course in accordance with law within a period of two months from today.