' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---On 4-7-1984 the respondent-Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs,2,32,528.55 against the appellants. Notices were issued in the prescribed forms and in response the appellants filed an application for leave to defend the suit. Inter alia, a plea was taken that rice worth Rs, 4,00,000 had been pledged with the Bank and the loan is to be adjusted against the sale of the said rice but the Bank has not permitted the appellants to sell the rice. In reply to the said allegation the stand taken by the Bank was that the rice cannot be sold in the open market under some provision of law and since the appellants had not cooperated with the Bank in the matter of obtaining the requisite permission from the Food Department for the sale, the rice could not be sold and the stocks have deteriorated. It was further stated that when the pledged stocks were offered to the Food Department for sale the same was rejected. Somehow or the other the said suit remained pending with the learned Judge, Banking Court, Faisalabad when on 15-7-1998 an application for leave to defend the suit was taken up and after dismissing the application the suit was decreed as prayed for. It also appears that the said rice stocks were sold during the pendency of this suit and the price of the stock was ordered to be adjusted against the suit amount. The suit was decreed accordingly. It was also found that under the agreement between the parties the respondent-Bank is not at all liable or responsible for any loss, damage, deprecation and deterioration of the pledged goods. Against the said judgment and decree the appellants filed R.F.A. No, 449 of 1998 which was dismissed by a learned Division Bench of this Court on 10-12-1998.
2. The suit out of which this R.F.A. Has arisen was filed by the appellants against the respondent- Bank on 16-12-1996. This matter was also taken up alongwith the said earlier suit and was dismissed with reference to the said judgment, dated 15-7-1998 as also by holding the suit to be time-barred, by the learned trial Court on 15-7-1998.
3. Learned counsel contends that the suit filed by his clients against the respondents hid not been adjudicated upon at all, whereas the plaint did disclose triable issues. According to the learned counsel upon reading of the plaint the suit was within time. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the pleas raised in this plaint were to constitute the defence pleas in the suit filed by the respondent-Bank against the respondents and the said plea was turned down and the suit was decreed which decree has since been affirmed by this Court. According to the learned counsel in the said circumstances it cannot be said that the plea of the appellant had not been adjudicated upon.
3-A. We have gone through the trial Court's records. Since the present suit had been decided with reference to the judgment in the suit filed by the respondent-Bank against the appellants, records of R.F.A. No, 449 of 1998 have also been requisitioned. A reading of the order sheet of the said case shows that the reply to the P.L.A. Was filed on 13-7-1985 when the matter was adjourned to 19-10- 1985 for arguments. On this date a request was made that the matters are being settled outside the Court. On 20-2-1986 it was reported that the said efforts have failed. An application was filed by the appellants for inspection of the pledged goods. The matter was kept on being adjourned for one reason or the other till 16-2-1987 when it was agreed that the appellants can inspect the rice, pay its price and get the rice released which would be adjusted against the loan. Thereafter, it was stated before the Court on 11-5-1988 that let the rice be sold by the Court auctioneer and the price be deposited in the respondent-Bank. On 23-5-1988 another order was passed by agreement of parties that let the Court auctioneer sell the rice. 90% of the price be paid into the Bank and 10% be paid to the appellants. The Court auctioneer was to get 2-1/2% of the price as commission. The appellants were also held entitled to present customers for the said goods. On 29-10-1988 a report was filed by the Court auctioneer. The report was objected to. Statements of the Bank Manager and the Court auctioneer were recorded and thereafter ultimately the matter was heard. The P.L.A. Was taken up and dismissed. According to the report of the Court auctioneer the proceedings were conducted on 25-10-1988 and the entire rice present there was sold for Rs,8,970.
4. In the present suit filed by the appellants on 16-12-1996 it was stated that a limit of Rs, 2,00,000 was availed w,e,f, 29-12-1982; that rice mentioned in para. 4 of the plaint valued at Rs, 2,58,741 was pledged which was in the possession of the respondent-Bank inasmuch as the lacks were placed in three godowns by the Bank and the key was in its possession; that the respondent-Bank did not permit the appellant to sell the stocks or to check the same; that the Bank was repeatedly called upon to sell the pledged stocks and to adjust the price against the loan obtained by the appellants but instead the Bank filed a suit for recovery of money and refused to render the accounts. There is then reference to the proceedings of the Court whereby the godown was opened, the rice was checked and was found to have deteriorated and out of entire stock the rice sold only fetched Rs, 8,970 which amount was deposited in the Bank.
5. A plain reading of the said plaint would show that no element of any rendition of accounts is involved. The exact detail of the price of the stocks are mentioned in para. 4 and the stocks found and the value of the stocks sold by the Court auctioneer has also been stated in the plaint itself.
Thus if at all, a suit for the said amount showing difference of value could have been found. Besides the limitation for a suit of such a nature is governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act and the prescribed period of six years starts from the date when the right to sue accrued. In the present case on face of the plaint a right to sue accrued when the Court auctioneer opened up the godowns and made a report as to contents thereof and also when the auction was completed in October, 1988. The suit, if at all it was competent, could have been filed till October, 1994 but admittedly it has been filed on 16-1-1996. There is no statement in the plaint within the meaning of Order VII. Rule 6. C.P.C. As to how the suit was within time.
6. Apart from the above facts, it is a matter of record that the plea raised in the plaint had been raised as defence plea in the suit filed by the respondent-Bank. We have examined the said judgment (although the suit of the appellants was decided with reference to the said judgment yet a copy of the same has not been appended in this R.F.A.). In the file of R.F.A. No, 449 of 1998 we do find that the plea was taken note of, was discussed and decided against the appellants. The judgment has since been confirmed as R.F.A. No, 448 of 1998 stands dismissed. In view of the said finding recorded between the parties, the present plaint and this appeal arising out of the same cannot be entertained.
7. For all that has been discussed above, this R.F.A. B is found to be without any force and is dismissed with costs throughout.