' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---This appeal impugns the order, dated 26-5-2001 passed by the learned Banking Court No,II, Lahore. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the appellants/defendants filed a petition seeking leave to appear and defend within the period of 21 days allowed by law. According to him, the objections taken in the said petition were not duly considered by the learned Banking Court. We asked him to point out to us the objections and to support the same from the record. His first contention was that five documents had been appended with the plaint filed by the respondent- Bank. Each of the said document was dated 12-9-1998. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that all of these documents could not have been signed on the same date. This is not a well-founded contention. The said five documents are the following:
(i) Financing Agreement.
(ii) Facility Letter.
(iii) Demand Promissory Note.
(iv) Letter of Continuity.
(v) Memorandum of deposit of title deed.
3. We do not see any reasons why the aforesaid documents could not have been signed on the same date. As such, this contention of learned counsel is without merit.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to the case titled National Bank of Pakistan v. Messrs Elegzender & Company and 2 others (PLD 1987 Lahore 290) to argue that the appellants became entitled to permission to defend the suit upon showing a plausible defence. This law is well-settled relating to the provisions of Order XXXVII, C.P.C. In the present case, firstly, as noted above, no plausible defence at all has been shown by the appellants/defendants. Secondly, we note that the earlier law did justify grant of leave when a defendant was able to show a plausible defence.
However, the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 under which the respondent-Bank's suit was filed, required the defendants/appellants to show a serious and bona fide defence before they could be allowed leave to appear and defend. This has not been done. In these circumstances, the precedent cited by learned counsel for the appellants is not relevant. In this view of the matter, this appeal being without merit is dismissed.