1. ' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---We have already noted the reasons for admitting this appeal to regular hearing in our order, dated 28-2-2002. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Bank does not deny that leave to defend was granted to defendant No,1, namely, Abdul Latif vide order, dated 5-5-1988 passed by the learned Special Court (Banking), Multan. He merely states that the said leave was granted conditionally, as stated in para.3 of the aforesaid order, requiring the appellant to furnish personal surety in the sum of Rs,3,66,000.
2. We note that the learned Banking Court while passing the order, dated 9-2-2002. Impugned in the present appeal, has not even referred to the earlier order, dated 5-5-1988 nor has it reached the effectual conclusion that the conditional leave-granting order was not complied with by the appellant. In this view of the matter, we find no justification for the suit of the respondent-Bank being decreed without trial as a regular long cause at least in respect of the present appellants who are legal representatives of Muhammad Latif.
2. ' In the above circumstances, the impugned judgment and decree, dated 9-2-2002 are set aside.
3. The case is sent back to the learned Banking Court No,I, Faisalabad for decision.
4. ' This appeal is allowed in the above terms. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.