We propose to decide the present appeal (R.F.A. No.308 of 2006) and the connected appeals (R.F.A.
No.309 of 2006 and R.F.A. No.310 of 2006) through the instant single judgment, as common questions of law and facts are involved in all the cases and they are between the same parties.
2. Instant appeal proceeds against judgment and decree, dated 1-3-2006, whereby the learned Judge Banking Court passed a decree for recovery of Rs.24,27,855 together with costs and cost of funds against the appellant, while the other two appeals challenge the judgment and decree, dated 8-3-2006, through which the learned Judge Banking Court disposed of appellant's two suits.
3. Briefly stated facts leading to the filing of these three appeals are that the respondent- Corporation, on 18-10-2004, filed the suit for recovery of Rs.21,71,455 against the appellants titled "NDLC v. AB Fabrics and others" (Suit No.87 of 2004) before the learned Judge Banking Court, which was contested by the appellants through the petition for leave to defend the suit. Before the institution of the said suit, the appellants, on 16-9-2003, filed the suit for redemption of mortgaged property against the respondents titled "Muhammad Shafique and others v. N.D.L.C. And others"
(Suit No. 148 of 2003) before the learned Judge Banking Court. On 14-6-2005, the appellants filed another suit for declaration to the effect that they are entitled to recover the insurance amount against the respondents titled "Messrs A.B. Fabric and others v. N.D.L.C." (Suit No.104 of 2005) before the same Court. The two suits filed by the appellants were contested by the respondents. The learned Judge Banking Court, after hearing the parties decreed respondent's suit for an amount of Rs.24,27,855 with costs and cost of funds and dismissed two suits, filed by the appellants, vide single judgment and decree, dated 1-3-2006.
Subsequently, the learned Judge, in view of the detailed judgment in the suit titled "NDLC v. AB Fabrics" disposed of appellants' two suits having become infructuous, vide judgments and decrees, dated 8-3-2006, hence the present appeals.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that although appellant's suit were disposed of on 8-3-2006, yet in the judgment, dated 1-3-2006 passed in respondent's suit, those were dismissed.
He adds that appellants' suits were not fixed for 1-3-2006, therefore, those could not have been dismissed seven days prior to their fixation. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgments.
5. We have heard the learned counsel and examined the summoned record. Perusal of judgment, dated 1-3-2006 manifests that the learned Judge Banking Court, while deciding respondent's suit for recovery, proceeded to dismiss appellant's two suits as well without adverting to their facts and law involved in the case through a single judgment. It may be noted that no decree sheets were drawn in appellants' two suits on 1-3-2006. We find that the learned Judge without advancing any reasons dismissed appellants' two suits on the sole ground that the same property is mortgaged with NDLC. Although two suits filed by the appellants were dismissed on 1-3-2006, vide single consolidated judgment, as noted above, yet appellants' two suits were disposed of vide separate judgments and decrees both, dated 8-3-2006. It is important to note that the suits filed by the appellants could not have been decided on 1-3-2006, when, according to the own showing of the learned Banking Court, those were fixed for 8-3-2006. To our mind, had all the cases been fixed on one date, those could have been decided by single judgment and separate decrees. In this case all the three suits were decided on 1-3-2006, however, separate judgments and decrees, dated 8-3- 2006 were passed in appellants' two suits. We have examined the order sheet and find that, on 28- 2-2006, appellants' two suits were adjourned to 1-3-2006, but those were not taken up on 1-3-2006 and on the said date no order was passed. It is, however, not discernible from the order sheet of the learned Judge Banking Court as from which date the cases were adjourned to 8-3-2006. When the appellants' suits were neither taken up on 1-3-2006 nor those were fixed and adjourned to 8-3- 2006, how the suits could be dismissed on 8-3-2006.
6. In the above perspective, we have examined the impugned judgments and decrees and feel that the learned Judge Banking Court has decided the matter without due application of judicial mind. Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported as Haji All Khan and Company, Abbottabad and 8 others v. Messrs Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited, Abbottabad (PLD 1995 SC 362) has held as under:-- "Every Court is required to apply its mind before passing any order or judgment notwithstanding the facturn that no person has appeared before it to oppose such an order or that the person who wanted to oppose was not allowed to oppose because he failed to fulfil the requirements of law."
In the present scenario, the learned Judge Banking Court, while deciding three suits, on 1-3-2006 and disposing of appellants' two suits, on 8-3-2006, has committed grave legal error, which to our mind, vitiate the judgments and decrees.
7. In view of the above, all the appeals are allowed, impugned judgments and decrees, dated 1-3- 2006 and 8-3-2006 are set aside with no order as to costs. Resultantly respondent's suit for recovery and appellants' two suits shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Banking Court No.II, Faisalabad, who shall decide the same, afresh, after hearing the parties and of course in accordance with law. Office is directed to immediately transmit the records of the cases to the learned Judge Banking Co rt II, Faisalabad.