' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.--- A suit for recovery of sum of Rs,19,85,663 instituted by the respondent- Corporate it 1 on was decreed by the Banking Court No,4 on 16-2-1998 to extent of Rs,8,00,700 with costs. This is appeal there against.
2. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record has been perused.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Court at Lahore had no territorial jurisdiction in the matter as the appellants/defendants were situated at Sialkot and documents were executed there, has no merit in view of clause 19 of the lease agreement which reads as under:- "This Lease Agreement has been entered into at Lahore and the parties are agreed that the Courts at Lahore shall have exclusive jurisdiction in any and all litigation arising from or in connection with this Lease Agreement."
' Thus having admitted the execution of the agreement at Lahore and agreed that the Court at Lahore vi have jurisdiction in the matter, it cannot be successfully pleaded, now on behalf of the appellant that the Court at Lahore had no jurisdiction to entertain, try or adjudicate the matter.
Reference in this contest may be made to Tahir Tariq Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Chief Executive and 2 others v. N.D.F.C. Through Chairman (2001 YLR 846) and Bankers Equity Ltd. v. Iqas Weaving Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. (2001 CLC 169).
4. We, however, find some substance in the plea of the appellants that the decree ultimately granted by the Banking Court for a sum of Rs,8,00,700 is not consistent with the preceding findings of the Court. It was specifically noted by the learned Banking Court that "the plaintiff has proved its case against the defendants for lease rentals on the machinery which was given to them on the basis of the agreements and other documents executed by the defendants, and the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for the recovery of the amount of rentals of the machinery given to them in pursuance of the aforementioned agreements". It clearly shows that claim of the respondent- Corporation was accepted and was to be decreed to the extent of lease rentals on the machinery and not the finance facility relating to the car. However, as per the operative part of the order, the decree granted for Rs,8,00,700 covers also an amount of Rs,1,51,750 as rentals for the car. This obviously is result of an error having crept in the order which need to be corrected. Thus to make the decretal amount consistent with the findings and judgment, we direct that the decree granted by the Banking Court would be for Rs,6,48,950 (8,00,700 minus 1,51,750).
' The appeal is thus accepted to that extent by modifying the decretal amount. No order as to costs.