' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---A suit filed by the respondent-Bank against the appellant was decreed in the sum of Rs,18,52,837 by a learned Judge, Banking Court-II, Faisalabad, on 29-3-2007.
The appellant filed an application under section 12 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, for setting aside of the ex parte decree. The application was accompanied by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The application was taken up on 28-9-2007 in the absence of the appellant and was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant was behind the bars on the said date while the counsel was busy before learned Senior Civil Judge, Faisalabad, in a direction case.
Further contention is that the application could have been dismissed for non-prosecution but the learned Judge, Banking Court, proceeded to dismiss it holding it to be time barred and not signed.
Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order.
3. We have gone through the copies of the records. It is evident on the face of the record that the application was taken up in the absence of the appellant or his counsel. It could not have been decided on the grounds stated in the order without hearing the appellant or his counsel whose absence has been explained in the affidavit of the learned counsel filed with the F.A.O.
4. The F.A.O. Accordingly is allowed. The impugned order dated 28-9-2007 is set aside. The result would be that the application filed by the appellant shall be deemed to be pending and shall be decided by the learned Judge, Banking Court-II, Faisalabad, after hearing the parties. No orders as to costs.