' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition calls in question judgment, dated 9th December, 2003 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.F.A. No,64 of 2003.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that respondent-Bank obtained decree in its favour for the recovery of sum of rs,.22,54,002/97 along with costs and cost of funds as certified by State Bank of Pakistan from time to time from the date of default i.e, 14th December, 2001 till realization of the decretal amount. In case of their failure to satisfy the decree, the decree shall be executed according to law. Appeal filed by the petitioners, before the High Court has been dismissed vide impugned judgment. As such instant petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the claim of the respondent-Bank was based on blank papers, which were not admissible under the law, therefore, decree could have not been passed by the Banking Court in favour of respondent/decree-holder.
4. It may be noted that petitioners, filed application for permission to appear and defend the suit wherein liability to satisfy outstanding claim was not denied by the petitioners,. However, permission was denied to the petitioners, to appear and defend the suit and decree was passed on accepting the claim of respondent-Bank against petitioners,. We are of the firm view that non- disputing of liability by the petitioners, is sufficient to draw conclusion that, decree has been passed on admissible documents and contention of learned counsel looses its IA importance.
5. Learned counsel further contended that 50% decretal amount has been paid by the petitioners,.
In view of the his such statement we are of the opinion that when petitioners, have started satisfying the decree, this B Court is not bound to interfere in impugned judgment particularly in view of the fact that no point of public importance is involved in this case.
' Thus for the foregoing reason petition is dismissed.