MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---On 5-12-2005 the appellant filed a suit against the respondents.
According to him, he availed the loan, particulars whereof stated in para-1 of the plaint, and had deposited his agricultural Pass Book with the. Respondents. He paid up principal as well as the mark-up and called upon the respondents to return his Pass Book whereupon he was told that some dues are still there. He made an inquiry and found that another loan account has been opened in his name, which, according to him, was forged and fictitious. He sought a declaration that the respondents are liable to adjust the amount deposited by him against the earlier loan and that there is no other loan and his Pass Book be released. The respondents were served in the manner prescribed. They put in appearance and filed an application for leave to defend the suit.
The plea taken was that after adjusting all payments, still a sum of Rs.2,29,284 is due. This application was filed on 26-1-2006 and the case was adjourned to 24-2-2006 and then to 2-3- 2006 by the reader of the learned trial Court. On this date, the suit was dismissed for non- prosecution. It was, however, restored on 5-4-2006 and notice was issued to the learned counsel for the respondents. On 8-6-2006 the learned Judge, Banking Court-I, Faisalabad, proceeded to dismiss the suit.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that on the relevant date the application for leave to defend was to be considered but the learned trial Court without granting leave proceeded to dismiss the suit. Learned counsel for the respondents-Bank finds it difficult to support the impugned order. He, however, says that the Bank had made a plausible defence in its said application.
3. We have gone through the records. We have already noted above the details of the proceedings that took place before the learned Judge, Banking Court. It is but evident that an application for leave to defend was filed. The case was adjourned for reply. On the said, date, the learned Presiding Officer was not present and his Reader adjourned the case to 2-6-2003 on which date the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, it was restored and ultimately the impugned order was passed. It was a suit filed by a borrower/ customer against a financial institution. The defendants were required to obtain leave to defend for which purpose the said application was filed. Instead of considering the said application and deciding the question of grant of refusal of leave, the learned trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit itself. The impugned order, therefore, is not sustainable.
However, we have confronted the learned counsel for the appellant with the grounds raised in the said application filed in terms of A section 10 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances)
Ordinance, 2001 and he expressed no objection to grant of leave. This R.F.A. Accordingly is allowed.
While granting leave to defend to the respondents/defendants in terms of the application presented on 14-1-2006 and entertained on 18-1-2006, we remand back this case to the learned Judge, Banking Court-I, Faisalabad. Records as well as a copy of this judgment be remitted to the said learned Court. The parties shall appear on 10-4-2007. Issues arising out of the said pleadings will be framed and the suit will be decided, after recording evidence, in accordance with law. No orders as to costs.