1. MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI, J.--- By this appeal, the appellant Ghulam Sarwar Memon has sought the following relief:-- "It is, therefore, prayed that the Honourable Court may be pleased to set aside the aforesaid judgment and decree, dated 27-5-2000, and dated 31-5-2000 respectively and also the order, dated 8-5-2000 and dismiss the suit of plaintiff-Bank or alternatively to remand the case back to the Banking Court for recording evidence after grant of leave to appellant to defend the suit."
2. The brief facts of the case as disclosed by the appellant in the appeal are that the appellant borrowed the amount from the Bank for the construction of house. The appellant failed to pay the same, therefore, respondent filed a suit before the Banking Court-II, Sukkur for the recovery of loan.
3. The appellant was served with notice issued by the trial Court but he was declined leave to defend the suit. Consequently, the suit was decreed by the impugned judgment, dated 27-5-2000.
4. ' We have heard Haji Abdul Latif Memon, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Razzak Bhutto, learned counsel for the respondent. - The former has relied upon the case of United Bank Limited v. S. Ferozuddin Bajwa and 4 others 1997 M LD 801 and the letter has relied upon the case of Shaikh Muhammad Rafiq and others v. United Bank Limited and others 1997 SCM R 1149.
5. The arguments advanced and the perusal of the record shows that the principal amount of loan borrowed by the appellant is not disputed. The appellant has stated that he is no more in service and the loan is to be adjusted from G.P. Funds. He has made a grievance that leave to defend was wrongly refused by the trial Court and he had a genuine case for his defence. It would be pertinent to reproduce hereinbelow, section 10 of the. Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 for convenience sake:-- "10. Leave to defend.--- Subject to section 11, the Banking Court shall, upon an application made by a defendant within twenty-one days, give leave to defend the suit, if a serious and bona fide dispute is raised thereby."
6. The plain reading of the above provisions Of law shows that leave could only be granted when there is a "serious" and "bona fide" dispute with regard to the amount involved in the matter and if the amount involved is not realized then Court is competent to refuse the leave to defend the suit.
7. The appellant was employee of respondent/Bank. He was advanced Rs.2,54,700 as a House Building Finance by Zonal Office, Sukkur vide sanction advice, dated 18-7-1992. The appellant executed various documents with the Bank. The appellant admittedly failed to repay a single monthly instalment which resulted in default of payment of loan.
8. The appellant was removed from service and the loan remained unpaid. The leave to defend the suit can only be granted when the dispute is "bona fide" and "serious". The dispute in the instant case does not appear to be "bona fide" as the appellant did not pay a single instalment towards the loan advanced to him. The dispute does not appear to be "serious" between the parties as the advancement of principal amount of loan is not denied. The only plea raised by the appellant is that his service appeal is pending and it is likely to be allowed. It is stated that after his appeal is allowed, he would repay the loan and his back benefits would be adjusted in his loan. This plea is untenable and does not bring his case under the ambit of seriousness.
9. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case.
10. Consequently, we are of the considered view that the appeal is misconceived and stands dismissed.