By this common order we intend to dispose of the above titled two appeals as facts of the two cases and the controversy involved in these appeals are identical.
2. In these two appeals under Section 22(1) of the Sindh Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, orders dated 13.1.2005 passed by the Banking Court No. IV, Karachi in suits Nos. 718/1994 and 719/1994 have been challenged by the appellant, whereby here applications under Section 12(2), C.P.C, were dismissed by the Banking Court with the observations that ' due opportunity of hearing was afforded to the appellant during the proceedings of the suits before passing of impugned judgment and decree, but she failed to avail such Opportunity.
3. Mr. Fazal Dad Khan learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals has contended that neither the service of notice was effected on the appellant during the proceedings of the suits nor she had engaged any counsel to represent her or had filed any written statement in the suit.. In such circumstances the judgment and decree passed in the, two suits against her in her capacity as mortgagor, in respect of her property is unwarranted by law.
4. In the context of submissions made by the learned counsel, we have carefully perused the contents of the two identical applications moved by the appellant under Section 12(2), C;P.G. And seen that only vague assertions have been made by the appellant in her affidavit that she had no knowledge or information about the decree passed in the suit and that she had not obtained any loan from the decree-holder bank. Needless, to observe that it was not the case of the financial institution/decree-holder bank that any loan facility was extended to the present appellant, but the case of the decree-holder against the appellant was that she had mortgaged her property with the bank through her attorney. This position is duly supported from the bunch of documents placed on record by the Respondent bank alongwith their plaint in the two suits, which also contained documents regarding creation of mortgage in respect of the said property in favour of the respondent No. 1/decree- holder bank. The point which has been argued before us by the learned Counsel Mr. Fazal Dad that the appellant had not engaged any counsel in. The suit nor she had filed any written statement in the suit, was not even raised by the appellant in her application under Section 12(2), C.P.C., and it is further belied from the perusal of Vakalatnama of Mr. Saleem Thepdawa, Advocate filed before the Banking Court on 7.7.1994 and the written statement filed before the Banking. Court on the same date which bear signatures of the appellant.
5. In view of the above discussed facts and circumstances of the case of impugned orders of the Banking Court call for no interference in this appeal. Accordingly, both these appeals are dismissed. The R&P's called from the Banking Court be remitted immediately.