' CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J.---Through this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 26.12.2014 passed by the learned Banking Judge whereby the C.O.S. No,24/2012 was decreed in favour of respondent No,l.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No,1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs,5,24,72,390/12 under section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 against the appellant and respondents Nos.2 to 5. The appellant filed P.L.A. No,67/B/2012 while respondent No,2 filed P.L.A.
No,96/B/2012. On 9.5.2012, the case was adjourned for replication to the PLAs for 11.7.2012. On 24.12.2014, the ex parte proceedings were initiated against the appellant and respondents Nos.2 to 5 and thereafter the suit, filed by respondent No,!, was decreed by the learned Banking Judge vide judgment and decree dated 26.12.2012. Hence, this appeal.
3. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the impugned judgment and decree is against the law and facts of the case that while passing the impugned judgment and decree, the learned Banking Judge has not decided P.L.A. No,67/B/2012, filed by the appellant; that not only the signature of the appellant were forged on the guarantee/documents but also the signature of witness Hassan Bin Shujah were forged who sworn an affidavit in this regard and the same As placed on the record, therefor, the matter requires deep probe by this Court because the impugned judgment and decree has been passed on the basis of these forged signatures; that the appellant cannot be held liable for the debts of the company which he never guaranteed; and that the appellant came to know about passing of the impugned judgment and decree on 10.4.2015 when the Bank informed him regarding filing of execution petition.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No,1 has supported the impugned judgment and decree on the ground that the appeal is hopelessly barred by time. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the cases of "Mst. Khalida Khatoon and another v. Askari Bank Limited and 2 others" (2012 CLD 194) and "Gul Muhammad v. MCB Bank, Limited through President and others" (2012 SCMR 136).
5. Heard. Record perused
6. It is an admitted fact that P.L.A. No,67/B/2012, filed by the appellant, has not been decided by the learned Banking Judge while passing the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.12.2014 as such, on this sole ground the impugned judgment and decree on the face of it is void to the extent of the appellant. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No,1 that the appeal is barred by time, it is submitted that as the P.L.A. Filed by the appellant has not been decided, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree to his extent is void and it is settled principle of law that no limitation is run against a void order. In this regard, reliance is placed on the case of "Province of Sindh and others v. Ghulam Fareed and others" [2015 PLC (C.S.) 151] and "Fazli Hakeem and another v. Secretary State and Frontier Regions Division Islamabad and others" (2015 SCMR 795).
Even otherwise, respondent No,1 has neither filed any reply to application under section 24 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 read with section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (C.M. No, 1/C/2015) nor counter affidavit to controvert the narration of facts and the grounds raised in this application, which means an admission on the part of respondent No,1. In this regard, reliance is placed on the case of "Islamic Republic of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan, Rawalpindi and another v. Amjad Ali Mirza" (PLD 1977 SC 182). No,1 are not applicable in this case as in the said cases the petition for leave to appeal was granted/decided while in the instant case the learned Banking Judge has not decided the PLA.
8. In view of the above, the instant appeal is accepted, the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.12.2014 is hereby set aside to the extent of the appellant and P.L.A. No,67/B/2012 filed by the appellant/respondent No,1 will be deemed to be pending before the learned Banking Judge, who shall decide the same on merits and in accordance with law. C. M. No,1/C/2015 also stands allowed.