MUZAMIL AKHT AR SHABIR, J. -- Through this appeal, the appellant has called in question the order dated 21.12.2017 passed by Judge Banking Court-Il, Gujranwala, whereby the said Court by observing that nothing is outstanding in the name of the respondent as entire due amount has been adjusted and further trial of the suit would be wastage of time and abuse of process of law, disposed of the matter by directing the appellant to release the mortgaged/pledged property of the respondent forthwith after observing all the legal and procedural formalities as per law .
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that an amount of Rs. 1,70,657/- was outstanding which had not been paid by the respondent when decree was passed and even otherwise the learned Banking Court has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order without granting the permission to the appellant to prove its case after granting leave to defend the suit and placing its case before the Court through oral as well as documentary evidence.
3. Conversely , learned counsel for the respondent has defended the impugned order by stating that all the dues have been cleared and nothing is outstanding against the respondent.
4. Perusal of the impugned order shows that Farhat Ali, Manager of the appellant/Company was summoned by the Court to apprise about the outstanding amount due from the respondent as the respondent during the pendency of the suit had voluntarily , deposited Rs. 19,00,000/- in favour of the appellant to avail special package offered by it for settlement of outstanding liability but still the bank was claiming Rs. 1,66,316/- as outstanding whereas according to the respondent the same was not due. It is claimed by the appellant that there were two separate accounts in one of which special package was offered and not in the other , therefore, both the accounts could not have been adjusted by the Court on the basis of statement made by the Manager . It is observed that there was an admission on the part of the said Manager that, only an amount of Rs. 42,316/- was outstanding against the respondent, however , he claimed that Rs. 74,000/- was not deposited prior to the last date, fixed by the package. The Manager did not claim that his statement related to only one account and the case before the Court related to two accounts, therefore, the assertion of the appellant that statement related to only one account is not supported from the record and appears to be an afterthought. The Court observed that said amount of Rs. 74,000/- had been deposited prior to the said date so the said assertion of the Manager was not found to be convincing, consequently , only Rs.
42,316/- were found to be outstanding which the respondent deposited in the Court on 21.12.2017 vide Receipt No. 8600191 which was noted in the order of even date passed by the Court and as nothing was outstanding against the respondent to be paid on the said date the matter was accordingly decided. The grievance of the appellant is that the Court should have first allowed its application for leave to defend and then allowed it to lead evidence instead of deciding the matter on the basis of statement of the Manager . Suffice it to say that it is not mandatory to grant leave to defend in a case relating to' a matter which is not disputed between the parties in view of Section 10 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 ("Ordinance ") sub-section (9) whereof provides that leave to defend shall be granted only if substantial questions of law and fact have been raised in respect of which evidence needs to be recorded. Besides, Section 11 of the Ordinance provides that if the Banking Court is of the opinion that the dispute between the parties does not extend to the whole of the claim or that part of the claim is either undisputed or is clearly due or that the dispute is mainly limited to a part of the principal amount of the finance or to any other amounts relating to the finance it shall while granting leave and framing issues with respect to disputed amounts, pass an interim decree in respect of that part of the claim which relates to the principal amount and which appears to be payable by the defendant to the plaintif f. In the present case the statement made by the Manager of the appellant clearly provided that Rs., 42,316/- was due against the respondent and substantive amount of the payment by the respondent had also been admitted: Therefore, the dispute if any that could 'have arisen remained to the extent of outstanding amount of Rs. 42,316/- for which leave could have been granted and issues could have been framed for directing the appellant to lead evidence but the respondent did not dispute the said outstanding amount claimed by the appellant and deposited the same in the Court on the same date. Resultantly , no substantial question of law and fact requiring recording of evidence remained undecided between the parties as nothing remained due against respondent for which leave was sought to be granted. In such a situation where the Court was empowered to decide the matter through an interim decree in terms of Section 11 of the Ordinance, it was also authorized to decide the matter by passing a final order or decree for disposing of the matter on the basis of admitted facts. Passing of such a decree is not prohibited by any law and what is not prohibited is deemed to permitted. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgments reported as Muhammad Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry v. Mumtaz Ahmad Tarrar and others (2016 SCMR 1) and H.M. Saya & Co., Karachi v. Wazir Ali Industries Ltd, Karachi and another (PLD 1969 SC 65). Consequently , there is no ground to interfere in the order of the learned Banking Court.
5. For what has been discussed above, this appeal being devoid of any force is dismissed.