IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, J.---Learned counsel for the plaintiff has stated that the plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant, which relates to irrevocable Letter of credit No,ILC1242S6451606 dated 17-10-2006 ("LC No,516 of 2006") and Letter of Credit No,ILC1242S6451706 dated 17-11-2006 ("LC No,517 of 2006"), in which the defendant-Bank has failed to play its role under UCP 500, while the defendant Bank has also filed a suit for recovery of Rs,71,150, 745.28 (COS No,33 of 2007) against the plaintiff, which relates to the recovery of the trust receipt Finances obtained in connection with Letter of Credit No,ILC1242S6451606 dated 17-1.0-2006 ("LC No,516 of 2006") and Letter of Credit No,ILC1242S6451706 dated 17-11-2006 ("LC No,517 of 2006"), as such, the subject-matter in both the suits is the same and leave may be granted in both the suits and in this respect, reliance is placed upon Messrs First Women Bank Limited v. Registrar, High Court of Sindh, Karachi and 4 others 2004 SCM R 108 and Muhammad Khalid Butt v. United Bank Limited 2003 CLD 911.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant- Bank has vehemently controverted the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff and stated that both the cases cannot be consolidated and the PLAs are to be argued separately and disposed of on their own merits. It is further stated that if the contention of learned counsel for plaintiff is taken into consideration, then in every case of recovery filed by the bank, there would be a counter-case for obtaining leave, which is not permissible under the law and in this respect, reliance is placed upon Messrs United Dairies Farms (Pvt.) Limited and 4 others v. United Bank Limited 2005 CLD 569, My Bank Ltd. v.
Speedway Fondmetall Pakistan Ltd. And another 2007 CLD 1547 and an unreported judgment dated 25-11-2008 passed in C.P.No,1417-L of 2008 and this question has been decided even by this Court in Zeeshan Energy Ltd. And 2 others v. Faisal Bank Ltd. 2004 CLD 1741, in which it was held as under:-- "Pendency of suit filed by customers against bank---Plea raised by customers was that in the former suit filed by them leave had been granted to bank, therefore, they should also be granted leave to appear and defend the suit-Validity-Subsequent suit filed by bank against customers could not be stayed as by virtue of S.9 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, the provisions of S.10, C.P.C. Had been made inapplicable to the proceedings under the special law---Intention of the legislature was that if there was a situation, where two suits were filed, one filed by the customer against the bank and the other by the bank against the customer relating to the same finance, both suits, would be tried independently-Leave in either case, as a matter of course, should not be granted, only for the reason of the institution, pendency, of the grant of leave in other case---Rather for the leave purpose, the particular case should specifically be adjudged on its own merits and on the yardstick of the law stated in Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---If in both the matters,. The Court independently found the case fit for leave, the matters could then be fried together for avoiding the conflicting decisions---But if in one case, no case for leave was made out, the application for leave to defend the suit could be refused to follow the consequences and the other case should proceed on its own merits."
3. Relying upon the authorities cited by learned counsel for the defendant-Bank, it is ordered that PLAs in both the cases be argued independently.
4. To come up for arguments on the PLAs in both the cases on 15-9-2009.