' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---Seemingly aggrieved from the judgment and decree, dated 18-12-1994, whereby the appellant's suit for the recovery of Rs,64,766 was decreed only to the extent of Rs,5,084 the appellant through the filing of the present appeal. Has called in question the afore noted decision.
2. Facts culminating to the filing of the present appeal are that pursuant to the filing of a suit for the recovery of Rs, 64.766 by the appellant-Bank, against the respondent. Before the then Special Judge Banking, Lahore, the respondent filed an application seeking leave to appear and defend the suit, wherein it was, inter alia pleaded that as a consequent to issuance of letter, dated 31-3- 1992, by the Bank, the respondent deposited a sum of Rs,2,531. Therefore, nothing is outstanding against the respondent. In reply to the said application the appellant-Bank although admitted the issuance of afore noted letter and the deposit of the amount of Rs,2,531, yet denied that nothing is outstanding against the respondent. Subsequently the respondent filed an application reiterating the said plea with the prayer that as the suit amount stood adjusted, therefore, the suit be dismissed, which was also opposed by the appellant-Bank. However, the learned Judge Banking Court passed the decree for the recovery of Rs,5,084 against the respondent vide judgment and decree, dated 18-12-1994, which although has not been challenged by the respondent, yet the decree-holder has filed the appeal against the said decision.
3. Despite the issuance of P.C. Cards to the respondent for today, none has entered appearance on his behalf. Thus, he is proceeded ex parte.
4. Learned counsel of the appellant has submitted that although the letter, dated 31-3-1992, was issued by the appellant-Bank and the terms whereof have also been complied with by the respondent by depositing the requisite amount with the appellant-Bank, yet the same did not depict the true position of the account of the respondent and the said letter was issued by the Bank under a mistake of fact. In this perspective he has prayed that the impugned judgment and decree be set aside.
5. Upon the examination of the record of the case, we find that it was specifically pleaded by the respondent in his application for leave to appear and defend the suit that pursuant to the issuance of letter, dated 31-3-1992, he in complete obedience to the terms of the said letter, has deposited a sum of Rs,2,531 with the appellant-Bank, thus. With the implementation of the said letter the account of the respondent stood adjusted. We have also perused the said letter, which bears the signatures of the Manager of the appellant-Bank whereby it was intimated to the respondent that if an amount of Rs,2,531 will be deposited by the respondent then an amount of Rs, 55,623 will be waived. Admittedly, the respondent complied with the terms of the letter and deposited the said amount. With the deposit of the said amount, we are of the view that the account of the respondent stood adjusted and, therefore, there was no justification for the appellant-Bank to continue with the suit.
6. We have also examined the impugned judgment wherein we find that the learned Judge Banking Court after embarking upon every aspect of the case, taking into account all the incentive schemes and after considering letter, dated 31-3-1992, came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs,5,084 is still outstanding against the respondent, thus, he passed. The decree of the said amount, to which no exception can be taken by the appellant-Bank.
7. So far as the solitary contention raised by the learned counsel, suffice it to say that section 20 of the Contract Act is a complete answer to the afore noted feebly raised contention, which provides that where both the parties to an agreement, are under a mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement, the agreement is void. In the case in hand, of course, both the parties were not under a mistake, but only the appellant-Bank was, statedly, under a misconception of fact, thus, we find that there is no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel.
8. Another aspect of the case is that the appellant-Bank itself offered the respondent that if he will pay a sum of Rs,2,531 then an amount of Rs,55,623 will be waived, then by way of depositing the requisite amount, the respondent accepted the offer. Thus, an agreement enforceable under the law came into existence. After the deposit of the said amount and having accepted the terms of the offer by the respondent, the appellant-Bank has no lawful authority to unilaterally retrieve from the terms of the offer, which for all intends and purposes were implemented. We find that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Banking Court is not clothed with any legal infirmity, thus, we are not inclined to interfere in the above judgment.
' Upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal is devoid of merits, thus, the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs.