MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---Admittedly, there is a relationship of Banking Company and Customer inter se the parties. On account of the finance obtained by the appellant from the respondent-Bank, a dispute arose between them, constraining the appellant to file a suit for rendition of accounts. The respondent moved an application for leave to appear and defend the suit; which was allowed, where-after issues were framed, but without recording the evidence, the learned trial Court through the impugned order dated 27-9-2003, rejected the plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., holding that the cause of action does not subsist against the respondent.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant states that since the .Leave was granted and issues were framed, the controversy could only be resolved after the parties were given an opportunity to .Prove or disprove their case; this has not been done by the learned trial Court; on reading the contents of the plaint, it discloses a cause of action.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment reported as M/s. Friend Engineering, Corporation v. Government of Punjab and 4 others 1991 SCM R 2324, to argue that where there is a contractual 'obligation, the suit for rendition of account is not maintainable.
4. Heard. The above aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order, rather the plaint has been rejected on account of the lack of cause of action, which on the basis of the contents of plaint and the settled principles regarding the rejection of plaint, is not a valid order. As regards the question of maintainability now raised, it is neither raised by the respondent before the. Banking Court, nor this is the ground for the rejection of the plaint. We are told that an issue about the maintainability of the suit has already been framed, thus, we expect that while deciding the said issue, the Court below will take into account the respective pleas of the parties and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Banking Court for decision afresh. The appeal is accordingly allowed.