' The brief facts out of which the present appeal arises are that the respondents/Bank filed a suit for recovery against the appellants amounting to Rs .29,10,618. The appellants filed application for leave to defend which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order, dated 2-6-1999, and the suit of the respondent/Bank was decreed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 2-6-1999, hence the present appeal.
2. The learned counsel of the appellants submits that appellants' counsel was present in the Court on 2-6-1999 in the early hours of the day but subsequently, the learned counsel of the appellant did not enter appearance. The learned Banking Court was erred in law to dismiss the application for leave to defend for non-prosecution filed by the appellants. He further submits that it is the duty and obligation of the learned Banking Court to decide the application for leave to defend on merit instead of dismissing the same for non-prosecution. He further submits that the impugned order, does not contain the contents of the application of the appellant for leave to defend, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
3. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that the impugned judgment and decree, dated 2-6-1999 is valid as the claim of the respondent/Bank was not denied by the appellants in the application filed by the appellants before the learned Banking Court for leave to defend. He further submits that the appellants were directed by the learned Banking Court to enter appearance on various dates by various orders but the appellants failed to enter appearance personally as is evident from the order sheet. He further submits that letters admitting the liability by the appellants were not denied by the appellants in the application filed by the appellants before the learned Banking Court.
4. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.
5. The impugned order, dated 2-6-1999 is not in accordance with law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Haleem and others v. H.H. Muhammad Naim and others (PLD 1969 SC 270). Even otherwise the appellant was not granted fair opportunity to defend the case properly. In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned judgment and decree is set aside meaning thereby that the application filed by the appellants shall be deemed to be pending adjudication before the learned Banking Court. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Banking Court on 21-1-2002. Since the matter is old one, therefore, the learned Banking Court is directed to decide the case within two months even at the costs of day to day proceedings. Parties are directed to cooperate with the Banking Court. The main appeal has been accepted therefore, the C.M. 3-C of 1999 and C.M. No,4-C of 1999 have become infructuous.