1. ' Defendants Nos.1 and 2 have not filed any application for leave to defend. Hence they are liable for a decree against them forthwith.
2. ' On 22-5-1988 the following order was passed by my learned brother Mr. Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid:- "I have heard learned counsel for defendant No,3 and learned counsel mainly raised legal pleas as otherwise the taking of the loan by defendant No,1 firm from Dubai Bank and the rate of interest is not denied. It is also not denied by Mr. G.M. Qureshi that defendant No,3 is a partner of defendant No,1 firm, but the contention is that defendant No,3 was a sleeping partner and he had not signed any cheque or operated the account.
3. ' Mr. Shaikh Mir Mohammad, Advocate for defendant No,4 states that his client is only a guarantor and had mortgaged his property as security for the loan granted by the plaintiff-bank and if the plaintiff-Bank waives interest, defendant No,4 will settle this matter with the plaintiff Bank. Both Mr. G.M. Qureshi and Mr. Sheikh Mir Mohammad want some time.
4. ' Adjourned to a date in office."
5. For the reason shown in the above order defendants Nos.3 and 4 do not appear to have any plausible defence. Hence C.M. As. Nos. 2772 of 1987, 28% of 1987 and 2897 of 1987 arc dismissed. The plaintiffs suit is decreed against all the defendants jointly and severally for a sum of Rs,24,23,730.39 with 14% p.a. Interest from 21-9-1986 till realisation of decrctal amount. A preliminary decree for mortgage is passed against the Defendant No,4 under Order 34, C.P.C. In case the decretal amount is not paid within six months, final mortgage decree shall follow in respect of the mortgaged property. Costs of the suit shall be borne by the defendants.