' The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit on 11-7-2003 for rendition of accounts and for recovery of Rs,45 Million as damages. The respondent-Bank filed an application for leave to appear and defend the suit on 22-8-2003. Reply to the same was filed by the plaintiff/appellant on 30-3-2004. The learned Judge Banking Court vide judgment dated 9-9-2005 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the suit of the appellant could not be dismissed summarily. No order was passed on the leave application filed by the respondent-Bank.
Further urged that without deciding the same, the suit of the plaintiff/appellant could not be dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent referred to two letters stating that the plaintiff/appellant has admitted his liability as such the suit was rightly dismissed.
4. We have gone through the impugned judgments, perused the record and considered the arguments propounded by the learned counsel for the parties. The suit of the plaintiff/appellant for rendition of accounts and for recovery, of damages has been summarily dismissed. It is well- established that without deciding the application for leave to appear and defend the suit on its own merits, the learned Judge Banking Court could not, embark upon the suit and dismiss the same. Even otherwise, the contents of the plaint do disclose a triable issue. The impugned judgment is violative of provision of section 10 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances)
Ordinance, 2001.
5. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed, and the impugned judgment dated 9-9-2005 passed by the learned Judge Banking Court No,2 Gujranwala, is set aside. Resultantly, the suit of.
The plaintiff/appellant and the application for leave to appear and defend the suit filed by the respondent-Bank shall be deemed to be pending which shall be decided by the learned Judge Banking Court in accordance with law.