' ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, J.---This appeal assails the order dated 27-3-2000 passed by the Judge, Banking Court No,IV, Lahore, whereby application of the appellant for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 9-9-1998 has been dismissed.
2. The respondent-Bank filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs,7,31,558 against the appellant.
Summons were issued to the appellant-defendant through all four modes prescribed by law.
Pursuant to that the appellant filed a petition for leave to appear and defend. The case was fixed for 9-9-1998 when none appeared on behalf of the appellant-defendant, so the case was proceeded ex parte against the appellant and in the circumstances, the Banking Judge decided the suit and passed a decree for recovery of Rs,7,31,558. The appellant moved an application on 12- 10-1998 under section 12 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 9-9-1998. The same was, however, dismissed on 27-3-2000 by the Judge, Banking Court No,IV, Lahore, being time-barred.
3. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant has firstly argued that the appellant filed an application under section 9(4) of the Act of 1997 for permission to defend the suit unconditionally, therefore, this appeal may be decided on merits without taking into consideration the question of limitation. In support of this proposition he has relied. On the case reported as National Bank of Pakistan v. Tradewell (Pakistan) Corporation and 2 others 1991 CLC 1243. This assertion of the learned counsel for the appeal cannot be entertained in view of the fact that the appellant did not turn up before the Judge, Banking Court on 9-9-1998 when the case was fixed for arguments. The case cited by the learned counsel reported as National Bank of Pakistan (supra) is not akin to the facts of the present case, because in that case the defendant was debarred from defending the suit for the reason that the application for permission to defend was made beyond time and it was held that he was greatly prejudiced by having been deprived of a valuable right to defend the suit and it was observed that litigants should not be thrown out from their rights. But, in the present case, the appellant after filing the application for leave to defend did not appear in the Court, which resulted in ex parte decree against him and the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was barred by time.
4. The learned counsel then argued that the counsel for the appellant before the Judge, Banking Court, went to Faisalabad and the appellant unfortunately failed to appear before the Banking Court being indisposed and informed this factum to the trial Court through his cousin, who could not be marked present having no authority.
This contention of the appellant is not borne out from record because the application for setting aside the ex parte decree is not on the record and the Banking Judge proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground of limitation. It is provided in section 12 of the Act that application or setting aside the decree shall be filed within 21 days. In the present case the decree was passed on 9-9-1998, whereas the application was filed on 12,-10-1998 which was admittedly barred by time. In these circumstances the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was rightly dismissed by the Judge, Banking Court.
' In view of the above discussion, we have reached the conclusion that this appeal has no merits, it is, therefore, dismissed with costs.