' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The facts of this case are straightforward. The respondent-Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs,2,38,358, against the appellants/ defendants. An ex parte decree dated 15-12- 2000 was passed against the appellants in favour of the respondent-Bank. An application under section 12 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, was filed by the appellants to seek setting aside of the ex parte decree. The said application was dismissed by the learned Banking Court on 16-4-2001. It is this order, which has been impugned before us.
2. We note from the PLA dated 13-9-2000 submitted on behalf of the appellants/defendants before the learned Banking Court that they had acknowledged their liability to repay the amount of finance availed by them. Before us, learned counsel for the appellants contended that mark-up had been wrongly calculated by the respondent-Bank.
3. Although we were of the opinion that in view of the admissions contained in the PLA filed by the appellants, there was no room for any denial of liability at the appellate stage, we nevertheless adjourned the case twice to enable the appellants to approach the respondent-Bank for the purpose of showing to the bank the basis for their assertion that mark-up had not been properly calculated. Learned counsel for the bank has today stated that despite the adjournments allowed to the appellants, they have not approached the Bank. No valid reason for this omission has been given by learned counsel for the appellants. From this circumstance, we can only infer that the appellants are attempting to delay decision in this appeal.
4. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this appeal, which is, therefore, dismissed.