1. ' SALMAN TALIBUDDIN, J.---This suit was fixed in Court on 8-5-2009 for hearing of C.M.A. No,2066 of 2009 which is the plaintiffs application under Order XIII, Rule I read with section 151, C.P.C. And C.M.A.
2. No,3440 of 2008 which is the defendant's application under section 10 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 seeking leave to defend this suit. These applications arise out of the following facts.
3. ' Suit No,B-08 of 2008 was instituted on 26-5-2007 and seeks the recovery of Rupees 2,785,576.04 plus cost of funds from the defendants as well as the sale of properties said to have been mortgaged to secure the defendants' repayment obligations.
4. ' On 4-7-2007 the defendants filed C.M.A. No,3440 of 2008 seeking leave to defend the suit.
5. ' The replication on behalf of the plaintiff was filed on 11-8-2007 and C.M.A. No,2066 of 2009 was filed on 4-3-2009 seeking permission to receive additional documents in the possession of the plaintiff which had not been filed earlier along with the replication.
6. ' In paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed in support of C.M.A. No,2006 of 2009 it is stated that these documents are being filed pursuant to a direction by this Court vide order dated 19-2-2009.
7. ' I have seen the order dated 19-2-2009 and note that C.M.A. No,3440 of 2008 was being heard. On that date learned counsel for the plaintiff had sought time to file certain documents which time was allowed. This can hardly be referred to as a direction by the Court to file additional documents.
8. If anything, the order dated 19-2-2009 suggests that during the course of the hearing held on 19-2- 2009 learned counsel realized that certain documents considered relevant to the plaintiffs case that should have been attached to the Replication has not been attached to it.
9. ' In any event, these documents are considered necessary by the plaintiff to its case and it will be in the interest of justice if the same are taken on the record of these proceedings. The effect, however, of doing so will be the grant of the defendant's section 10 application. This is so because in their counter affidavit the defendants have challenged these documents. This, perforce, means that they will have to be proved in evidence.
10. ' I am also conscious of the fact that prior to the institution of Suit No,B-08 of 2008 the defendants in this suit had filed Suit No,B-11 of 2007 against the plaintiff in this suit and that the plaintiffs section 10 application in Suit No, B-11 of 2007 was granted by consent on 10-3-2008.
11. ' Since the documents on which the plaintiff seeks to rely in this suit leave to be proved in evidence, and since the defendant's leave to defend application in the connected Suit No,B-11 of 2007 has already been allowed, neither party will suffer any prejudice if the plaintiffs application C.M.A.
12. No,2066 of 2009 is allowed as prayed. As noted above, the natural consequences of this will be the grant of the defendant's section ' 10 application, C.M.A. No,3440 of 2008.
13. ' In view of the foregoing, both listed applications are allowed as prayed.
14. ' To come up now for framing of issues.