1. ' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---Respondent No,1 brought a suit for the recovery against the appellant as also respondents Nos.2 and 3. The respondent filed an application for leave to appear and defend which, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, was fixed for 19-6-2003 and was argued.
2. The case was, however, adjourned for 26-2-2004, on which diet, the learned Judge of the Banking Court dismissed the application for non-prosecution and was pleased to pass an ex parte decree against the appellant. It is submitted that the leave application was argued on 19-6-2003 and in support thereof the learned counsel who made his submission has filed an affidavit, which has not been controverted by the respondents through a counter-affidavit.
3. We have perused the judgment and find that even if the leave application was to be dismissed for non-prosecution, yet while decreeing the suit of the respondent the Court ought to have applied its mind to the facts of the case and adjudged. If the plaint was supported by the statement of accounts and such documents on the basis of which the plaintiffs suit was justified. But the Court in a mechanical and sketchy manner has passed the decree which does not reflect the application of a judicial mind and thus it cannot be sustained. Besides, for the reasons that the appellants claim on the leave application and the affidavit of the counsel in this behalf has not been controverted. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree is set aside to the extent of the appellant. The case is remanded to the Court below for deciding the leave application of the appellant which shall be deemed pending. Parties are directed to appear before the Court on 17-1- 2005, on which date or some other date to which the case is adjourned by the Court, the appellant shall argue his leave application, orally as also shall place on record his written submission, enabling the Court to decide the matter.