' SHAHID KARIM, J.---From the perusal of report of Process Server it is clear that service has been effected on the respondents, yet no one has appeared on their behalf to prosecution this appeal.
They are proceeded against ex parte.
2. This is an appeal under section-22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, against the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2012. Through the impugned order, the application for leave to defend was accepted by the Banking Court with regard to defendants Nos.3 to 9. While accepting application for leave to defend, the Banking Court proceeded to dismiss the suit and rejected the plaint with regard to the said defendants.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
4. The course adopted by Banking Court was clearly unlawful and beyond the provisions of Ordinance, 2001. In case the Banking Court was of the view that substantial question of law had been raised in the application for leave to defend, it was not proper for the Banking Court to have proceeded to dismiss the suit and reject the plaint to the extent of applicants, who had filed application for leave to defend the suit. At the most, the Banking Court could have granted leave to defend to those defendants and for the question to be determined through a regular trial by taking down evidence. The manner in which the impugned judgment and decree has been passed by the rejection of the plaint was not countenanced under the law.
5. In view of the above, we accept the appeal. The judgment and decree with regard to defendants Nos.3 to 9, who are respondents herein is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Banking Court for framing of issues and taking down the evidence in accordance with law.