1. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that "Demand Finance Facility' under self- employment Scheme to the extent of Rs.3,00,000 was sanctioned and availed by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 whereas respondents Nos.3 and 4 stood guarantors and had secured the repayment of said finance facility. The respondent No.3 further in order to secure the repayment of outstanding liabilities of respondents Nos.1 to 2 with some tangible security had executed registered mortgaged deed in respect of his residential property. The respondents were under the obligation to repay the said "Demand Finance Facility" to the appellant by 26 quarterly installments on or before 2-1-2002.
2. Since the respondents failed to repay their entire outstanding liability therefore, the appellant had no option but to initiate the recovery proceedings by filing Suit No.50 of 2002 before Banking Court- I at Larkana. It was further contended by the learned counsel that the respondents had put up a defense of total denial and therefore, application under Order 16, rule 1 was moved before the trial Court for calling Sub-Registrar. Larkana in order to prove the registered mortgaged deed executed by the respondent No.3. However, the learned trial Court rejected the said application in limine and dismissed the suit of the. Appellant on the basis of report procured from A.I.G. Police Criminalistic Division which reflected that the thumb impression of the respondent available on the charge documents do not match with the one obtained in Court, without adducing such report in evidence as required under the law, not the effect of registered mortgage deed was adjudicated. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the suit was rightly rejected as no finance facility whatsoever was availed by the respondent and the charge documents produced before trial Court did not bear the thumb impression of respondents Nos.1 to 2.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the record as placed before us. The perusal of record reflects that the trial Court has decided the suit on the basis of report obtained from the A.I.G. Police Criminalistic Division without discussing the effect of deposit of original title documents by the mortgagor, creation of charge on the mortgage property which appears to be on record for the last 10 years, Valuation Certificates. Site-Plan etc. And the effect of registered mortgage deed having a legal, presumption attached thereto that all judicial and official acts are performed regularly as provided in illustration "e" to Article 129 of Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, 1984. The Statement of account further reflect that repayment of finance was regularly made for the period of three years which is further not addressed. Since public money is involved as such an opportunity ought to have been provided to the appellant Bank in order to prove their case and suit should not have been decided without discussing and giving findings issue wise. For the foregoing reasons the impugned judgment and decree is set aside and the case is remanded to the Banking Court for a decision afresh after providing an opportunity to both the parties of adducing evidence, if they so desire. The proceedings be concluded within three months.
4. Both the parties are present and are directed to appear before the trial Court on 27-9-2006. Record and proceedings be returned to the trial Court.