' SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.---The plaintiff-Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs,55,06,740 with costs of fund etc. The defendants filed belated PLA, the Banking Court after hearing the counsel for the parties, dismissed the same holding that no substantial question of fact and law has been raised which needs recording of evidence, thereafter the Banking Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff-Bank in the sum of Rs,40,37,026.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant is aggrieved of the decree passed by the Banking Court to the extent of denial of mark-up in the sum of Rs,14,69,714.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the mark-up refused was legally recoverable as the respondents had got the facility renewed and thereafter signed several documents in this context. The question of mark-up .Was dealt in a slipshod manner without addressing the main issue inter se the parties in dispute.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has denied the assertions made by the plaintiff/appellant and has stated that the property documents which have been referred to are not part of the pleadings. The agreement referred to as well as the DP Note etc. Bears the date as 4-10-2003. On this date no facility was extended or renewed, therefore, the documents are fabricated and have no legal efficacy.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and their respective stances as stated by them, examining the plaint, the. PLA and the replication thereto, we consider that defendant has raised material questions of law and fact, as there are alleged material discrepancies in the plaint and, the documents referred to, therefore, we are inclined to grant unconditional leave to defend the respondents, qua the question of determination of mark-up payable to the Bank or otherwise charged after 22-8-2002, the decree passed already is maintained.
Leave to defend granted.