' The respondent/Bank filed a suit for the recovery of an amount of Rs,6,372,714.36 against the appellants on account of the 'finance' granted to the appellant No,1, whereas other appellants are either the Directors of the said appellant or the Guarantors, for the re-payment of the amount.
Notices were issued to the appellants, in ordinary manner as also, by publication in the newspaper daily Nawa-e-Waqt dated 31-7-1999 and in the daily The News dated 23-7-1999. All the appellants, did not file applications for the leave to appear and defend, rather from the record it stands established that appellant No,1 who is also the Chief Executive of the said appellant and is arrayed as defendant No,2 filed the only application on 2-9-1999. This application was dismissed for non- prosecution on 8-10-1999. The application for the restoration was moved on 2-10-1999, which was dismissed on 23-12-1999. Thereafter, the learned trial Court passed decree on 15-3-2000, primarily finding as there is no application for leave to appear and defend the suit consequently, decreed the case against the appellants and passed in favour of the respondent/Bank in accordance with law.
2. The learned counsel of the appellant has conceded that only appellant No,1 filed application through appellant No,2 who is the Chief Executive, however, it is stated that the said application was within time because according to the notice published in the newspaper the date fixed for hearing was 13-8-1999 and thus the application was moved on 2-9-1999 which was within 21 days.
3. We are afraid that this contention has no force notwithstanding that 13-8-1999 was fixed as next date of hearing in the case. Under the law an application has to be moved within 21 days. In this case, admittedly the notices were published on 23-7-1999 and 31-7-1999, respectively therefore, even if taking the latter date for computing time, the leave to appear and defend application was beyond time and was liable to be dismissed. Moreover, this application again was dismissed for non-prosecution on 8-10-1999. The application was made on 2-9-1999, for restoration but without disclosing any sufficient cause for the restoration thereof. This application was dismissed on 23-12- 1999. Accordingly on 15-3-2000, when the suit of the respondent/Bank was decreed, there was no application on behalf of the appellants for leave to appear and defend. It may be pertinent to state here that from the record, it stands established that the notices in the newspaper were published on 23-7-1999 and 31-7-1999, respectively, therefore, appellant having not filed application for leave to appear and defend the application, within the requisite period of time; the application of appellant No,1 was liable to be dismissed on score of limitation. Thus in the circumstances, we do not find inclined to interfere in the order on account of the above.
' As regards the other argument of learned counsel for the appellant that FIN (finance), was allowed to the appellant by the respondent/Bank on the pledge of certain imported material/ goods, which were under the locks and keys of the respondent and have been misappropriated by the respondent, thus until and unless, the goods are returned to the appellant, respondent cannot seek the recovery of the disputed amount. We are not impressed with the above plea, for the reason that in the leave to appear and defend application, this position has not been taken by the appellant. It is settled law that in order to make out a case for permission to leave to appear and defend; plausible defence has to flow from the application, but when appellants have not made out a case within the frame of plausible defence in the application, no interference in the regular first appeal can be made.
' In the light of above, this appeal has no merits and is hereby dismissed.