TALAAT QAYYUM QURESHI, J.-United Bank Limited, the respondent/plaintiff, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,15,438 with mark-up and liquidated damages against the appellant/defendant before the Judge Banking Court, Peshawar. The appellant filed application for grant of leave to defend the Suit which was contested by the respondent- Bank. The learned Trial Court granted leave to defend the suit whereafter, parties were invited to lead their evidence. Respondent-Bank recorded its evidence whereas the appellant despite availing many chances for examining the witness did not avail the opportunity of adducing evidence. Resultantly, the evidence of the appellant were closed under Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C, vide order, dated 26-10-2004 and the decree for recovery of Rs. 2,15,438 was passed in favour of respondent against the appellant vide judgment, dated 15-2-2005. Being not contended with the judgment and decree of the Court below, the appellant has filed the appeal in hand.
2. Mr. Qasim Khan Khattak, Advocate, argued that the learned Court below has failed to address all the points agitated in the application for grant of leave to defend the suit.
3. Lt was argued that the vehicle in question met an accident and the appellant in order to repair it spent Rs. 1,50,0 which fact was mentioned in the application for grant of leave to defend the suit.
4. Lt was also argued that the vehicle was impounded by the respondent-Bank in February, 1996 and remained in its custody till it was auctioned for a meager sum of Rs. 1,55 000. The auction, it was agued, was done at the back of the appellant without any notice to him.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Aamir Javed, learned counsel representing the bank who put in appearance in response to the notice of the appellant stated at the bar that bank would not press for the mark-up for the period since February, 1996 till passing pf the decree.
6. We have heard the arguments Of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The respondent/plaintiff has through convincing and reliable evidence proved that finance facility was availed by the appellant under the Prime Minister Transports Scheme and he failed to repay the amount of finance facility. The vehicle in question was admittedly impounded by the respondent/plaintiff in February, 1996 and was sold/auctioned by it for Rs. 1,55,000 which amount was adjusted towards the outstanding amount of finance facility. We accept the appeal to the extent that respondent-Bank is not entitled to mark-up from February, 1996 till passing of the decree. However, after deducting the mark-up of the said period, the remaining amount shall stand decreed against the appellant in favour of respondent/plaintiff. There shall be no order as to costs.