1. ' AGHA SAIF-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 22-12-1994 by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Suit No, 235 of 1991 for the recovery of Rs,11,72,184 together with mark-up thereupon by inter alia the sale of mortgaged property i,e, Plot No,11 measuring 2720 sq.Yds. Alongwith building and factory thereon situated at Kachi Mandi, Liaquatpur, District Rahimyar Khan.
2. ' The facts of the case are that the appellants entered into an agreement dated 6-10-1988 and in terms of that agreement respondent C.E.C. Of Pakistan Ltd., advanced to the appellants a sum of Rs,10,00,000 as security for supply of cotton and also executed a promissory note dated 6-10-1988, and also mortgaged abovementioned property, Plot No, 11 Kachi Mandi Liaquatpur and Memorandum of Deposit dated 6-10-1988 in suit. The appellants failed to supply-the agreed cotton bales and hence respondent filed the suit in the High Court on 18-2-1991, but the appellants could not 13e served until April, 1994. Thereafter, appellants/defendants filed their written statement and the suit came up for final disposal in Court on 27-10-1994. On that date the Advocate for the respondent/plaintiff stated before the Single Judge that he has not received the written statement hence the Court ordered that the case be adjourned to 14-12-1994. Direction was given to the Advocate of the appellants/defendants on 17-10-1994 to supply the copy of the written statement and Annexures to the Advocate of the respondent/plaintiff. On 14-12-1994 when the case came up for final disposal Mr. R. Rahman Shaikh, Advocate for the appellants/defendants said that he would supply the copy of the written statement to the other side, he undertook to supply such copy and then the hearing was adjourned to 21-12-1994 for final disposal of the suit.
3. ' On 21-12-1994 another Advocate Mr. A. Sattar Memon, filed his Vakalatnama and requested the hearing be adjourned. The learned Single Judge thereupon adjourned the case to 22-12-1994. On 22-12-1994 appellants/defendants could not produce any witness to rebut the allegations of the plaintiff/respondent and both the counsel of the appellants/defendants stated that they have no instructions. The learned Single Judge by his judgment dated 22-12-1994 decreed the suit as in the circumstances the pleas taken by the appellants/defendants remain unsupported by any evidence as the advocate for the respondent/plaintiff produced the agreement dated 6-10-1988, promissory note dated 6-10-1988 and Memorandum of Deposit dated 6-10-1988 as these documents have been admitted by the appellants/defendants.
4. ' We have heard Mr. Abdul Aziz Khan, Advocate for the appellants who has contended that the respondent/plaintiff had given wrong address of the appellants in suit showing Liaquatpur is a part of District Bhawalpur whereas Liaquatpur is Tehsil in District Rahimyar Khan and hence they were served after lapse of three years after respondent supplied the proper address in the Court. Second contention of the learned counsel is that the trial Court had no jurisdiction, in view of the agreement between the parties to refer the dispute to the arbitration and suit was decreed without given any chance to the appellants side to adduce the evidence. The last contention of the learned counsel is that an advance of Rs,10 lacs to the appellants was in settlement of outstanding amount of Rs,17,42,571 which appellants claim from the respondent for admitted supply of 12753 bales of cotton which was admitted by the respondent Zonal Manager vide his Letter No,CEC/RYK/COMM 8687/5969, dated 1-4-1987.
5. ' We have seen the record of the suit and found that the case came up for fall disposal in Court on 27-10-1994. On that date Advocate for the respondent/plaintiff stated in the Court that copy of the written statement had not been given to him whereupon the office was directed to ensure that the copy of the written statement and Annexures thereto are supplied to Mr. Mamoon Hasan and the case was to be fixed after notice to the appellants/defendants' Advocate Mr A. Rahman Shaikh, Hyderabad for 14-12-1994. On the next date of hearing i,e, 14-12-1994 the Advocate for the appellants/defendants Mr. A. Rahman Shaikh, stated that he had received the Court notice but he was not aware that the copy of the written statement had to be supplied to the other side. He undertook to supply such copy and suit was adjourned to 21-12-1994 for final disposal. We have also seen that on 21-12-1994 another advocate Mr. Abdul Sattar Memon, also filed his Vakalatnama and requested for adjournment and on his request the matter was again adjourned to 22-12-1994.
6. On 22-12-1994 both the Advocates for the appellants/defendants requested the Court to adjourn the matter as they had not been able to inform the appellants Nos. 2 and 3 for recording their evidence but some request was resisted by Mr. Mamoon Hassan, Advocate for the respondent/plaintiff that sufficient time has been granted to the appellants/defendants from 14- 12-1994 to 22-12-1994 and the learned Single Judge directed to proceed with the case but both the Advocates of the appellants/defendants stated that they had no instructions therefore learned trial Court decreed the suit for the recovery of Rs,11,72,184 which includes mark-up from the date of suit in accordance with clause (2) of the agreement dated 6-10-1988 with mark-up @ of Rs,0.43 per Rs,1,000 per day from the date of the suit till payment and costs of the suit. The burden of proof of the issues was on the appellants-defendants which they failed to discharge since they led no evidence.
7. ' The plea that the sum of Rs,10,00,000 was released to the appellants-defendants towards past dues of the appellants-defendants seems untenable because the documents do not support the plea, the appellants-defendants filed no claim for the alleged balance and above all failed to lead any evidence.
8. ' That for the abovesaid reasons, we fmd no merits in the appeal which is dismissed in limine.
9. ' We have by short order dated 15-8-1995 dismissed this appeal and these are the reasons for the same.