ABDUL SATTAR, J.---This regular first appeal under section 22 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2013 passed by learned Judge Banking Court No.II, Multan, whereby the said court decreed the recovery suit in favour of respondent bank.
2. Brief fact, of the case are that appellant availed finance facility of Rs.22221697/15 from respondent bank after executing collateral documents as per banking rules and later on failed to repay, hence, the suit . The appellants appeared before Banking Court and sought leave to defend, which was declined and as a consequence thereof the respondent bank was awarded money decree as prayed for with costs as well as costs of funds as per rate approved by the State Bank of Pakistan front the period of date of default till realization vide judgment dated 19.12.2013.
3. This regular first appeal filed beyond the period of limitation was, accompanied by an application under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay and in this behalf learned counsel for the appellants has argued that suit was fixed for final arguments before learned trial court on 24.10.2013 and after hearing final arguments from both sides, the case was kept in waiting for final orders, which was never announced till 29.10.2013 and the appellants got impression that case had peen decreed, so they filed an application for supply of copy of judgment and decree dated 24.10.2013 on the said date, which was duly registered at serial No.815.
Further argued that later on appellants had been contacting concerned court staff for supply of copy of judgment and decree, which was however never supplied. Further argued that on 30.1.2014 the appellants' counsel was summoned by learned Judge Banking Court for addressing further arguments, which would imply that case had not been decided till that time. Later on the appellants learnt that the suit has been decreed on 19.12.2013 in the back date and in this way the application for supply of copies dated 24.10.2013 was rendered infructuous. In this situation a fresh application for supply of copies was filed and after getting certified copies of the impugned judgment and decree' the appeal was filed without loss of time, so in this background delay in filing the appeal is required to be condoned. Plea for condonation of delay is vehemently opposed from opposite side. Learned counsel for respondent bank has additionally argued that in appeal filed under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 does not lie under the settled substantive and case law reported in "Bank of "Punjab v. Al-Wasay Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd. and others" (2017 CLD 179), "Tariq Mehmood v. Atlas Bank Ltd. through Authorized Agent" (2015 CLD Lahore 959), "Messrs Pangrio Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Bankers Equity Ltd. and 5 others" (2015 CLD Sindh 637), "NIB Bank Ltd. v.
Muhammad Zia Ali Qureshi" (2016 CLD Sindh 2160), "Allah Dino and another v. Muhammad Shah and others" (2001 SCMR 286).
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. For the resolution of limitation plea, record of the recovery suit has been seen particularly the order sheet maintained by learned Banking court, which clearly reflects that on 24.10.2013 the suit was fixed for remaining arguments on application for leave to contest and for clarification of detail of loan and on an adjournment request, the suit was adjourned for next date 04.11.2013. On the said date again on the request of parties counsel suit was adjourned for 19.12.2013 and on the said date after hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the application for leave to contest the suit was rejected and recovery suit was decreed in favour of the respondent bank and there is found nothing unusual or abnormal on the order sheet of learned Banking Court as fabled now in self serving manner obviously to make out a case for extension of limitation otherwise not available to the appellants in view of recent pronouncements from this court through rulings relied by learned counsel for the respondent bank noted above. In consequence thereof this regular first appeal being badly barred by 29 days limitation time is dismissed with costs.