1. ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, J.---Through this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 13.09.2013, passed by learned Judge Banking Court-III, Multan, whereby application for leave to appear and defend (PLA) filed by the appellants was dismissed for non-prosecution and suit filed by the respondent Bank was decreed.
2. 2.Brief facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the respondent Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs,42,20,790/- under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (the Ordinance).
3. The appellants/defendants filed PLA raising certain questions of law and facts. The respondent Bank filed reply to the PLA and case was fixed for arguments on 13.09.2013. The learned Banking Court on said date, dismissed the PLA for non-prosecution and also decreed the suit. The appellants being aggrieved have filed this appeal.
4. 3.Learned counsel for the appellants argued that under section 10 of the Ordinance, the Banking Court was also bound to consider the contents of the PLA and thereafter either to accept or reject the same, but could not dismiss the same for non-prosecution and decree the suit only on the basis of contents of the plaint. He submits that Banking Court was bound to consider the record even in absence of the PLA. He has placed reliance upon Abid Aziz Khan and others v. Bank of Punjab through Branch Manager (2007 CLD 997).
5. 4.Learned counsel for the respondent bank submits that in the PLA, the claim of the respondent Bank was admitted by the appellants themselves. He, however, does not deny that the grounds raised in the PLA, were not even considered and discussed in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Banking Court. In view of the above, he has no objection if the matter be remitted back to the learned Banking Court to consider the grounds of the PLA and decide the matter afresh strictly in accordance with law. This offer is acceptable to the learned counsel for the appellants.
5. We have heard counsel for the parties. It is settled law that even in absence of PLA, the learned Banking Court is bound to examine the record before passing the decree. Further under section 10 of Ordinance, once PLA was filed, its grounds could not be ignored and court should have considered those grounds even in absence of appellants. In view of the above settled law and also due to consensus developed between the parties the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.09.2017 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Judge Banking Court, who will decide the case afresh after considering the grounds of PLA of the appellants strictly in accordance with law. As the matter pertains to the year 2011, the needful shall be done preferably within a period of three months from the receipt of copy of this order.
6. 6.This appeal is allowed in the above terms.