1. MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---In the suit filed by the appellant against the respondents, by applying the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C., the plaintiff/appellant's evidence has been closed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 2-9-2008 and resultantly, the suit has been dismissed vide judgment and decree of even date. It is submitted that the case to 2-9-2008 was not adjourned upon the request of the appellant, rather it was a routine adjournment which was granted on account of the fact that the matter could not be amicably settled for which purpose it was fixed on 2-6-2008, a date prior to 2-9-2008, thus the penal provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C., which have to be strictly construed and applied, were not attracted to the instant case. The learned counsel for the respondents thought have resisted the appeal, however, on perusing the order- sheet, we are convinced that most of the adjournments in the matter were granted for the reason that the parties sought adjournments for an outside Court .Settlement, even the last but one date was for the same purpose, therefore, the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. Were inapplicable to the instant matter which order is liable to be set aside.
2. In the light of above, by allowing this appeal, the judgment and decree of the Banking Court is set aside and the case is remanded to the Banking Court for adjudication afresh by providing two opportunities to the bank for producing its complete evidence. The parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 25-3-2009.