' PARVEZ AHMAD, J.---We propose to dispose of this Regular First Appeal No, 340 of 1995 which was filed by Messrs United Bank Limited in a suit for recovery of money against Messrs J.J. Traders and another as a result of dismissal of its suit by the Court of Special Judge Banking Lahore on 18-5- 1995.
2. The facts which gave rise to this Regular First Appeal are that the present appellant/plaintiff before the trial Court i,e, Untied Bank Limited filed a suit for recovery of Rs, 1,34,983.34 alongwith accrued and future interest thereon at the rate of 13% per annum till the date of realization of the decretal amount against M/s. J.J. Traders and another with the averments that defendant No,1 was firm whose sole proprietor was Nisar Ahmad, the defendant No,2 in the suit. The defendant No,1 held Account No, CD-5366 with the plaintiffs-Bank and on 25-4-1968 an overdraft facility was allowed in favour of the defendants on their request to the tune of Rs,35,000 under Small Loans Scheme.
Defendant No,1 was, however, granted a loan cash credit/export packing credit to the limit of Rs,84,470 for the purpose of financing its export activities. It was alleged that as a security for the repayment of the said loan, charge/lien on its assets was agreed to be created by defendant No,1 and he hypothecated its raw materials, stocks, debts, assets and merchandize and also executed an undertaking not to create any further charge on the properties and assets owned by them. The defendant No,2 as an additional security for the repayment of the said loan executed a demand promissory note dated 28-3-1971 in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with interest at 3% above the State Bank of Pakistan's rate minimum 10% per annum with quarterly rests. The defendant No,1 also endorsed this promissory note to the plaintiff on 28-3-1971. On 30-12-1973 the defendants confirmed their liability vide balance confirmation letter of the said date and further acknowledged their liability in writing on 24-7-1976 and on 30-7-1976. After adjusting the amount paid by the defendants an amount of Rs,1,34,983.34 is outstanding against the defendants, hence this suit. During pendency of the suit the defendant No,2 Nisar Ahmad allegedly died and all his legal representatives were brought on record. The suit was resisted and contested by the defendants on various grounds including the ground that Nisar Ahmad had died prior to filing of the suit by the Bank, Nisar Ahmad had died on 9-12-1976, the present suit was brought on 12-10-1997. On the pleadings of the parties certain issues were framed and the trial Court recorded evidence of the plaintiff comprising of the statement of Tayyab Siddique P.W.1. As the evidence of the defendants was not available it was closed on 16-5-1988. The plaintiff-Bank at this stage came up with an application for additional evidence. On 20-12-1994 none had appeared on behalf of the defendants hence were proceeded ex parte and application of the plaintiff-Bank moved for production of additional evidence was dismissed and finally the suit for recovery of money brought by the Bank was dismissed. This dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff by the trial Court has given rise to this regular first appeal.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. None is present on behalf of the respondents, hence proceeded against ex parte.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he had produced Tayyab Siddiqui as P.W.1 in its affirmative evidence. The Bank reserved the right of production of evidence in rebuttal. The Bank moved an application for additional evidence through which the Bank wanted to produce Javed Iftikhar as P.W. In order to prove his signatures on the plaint and this production of the P.W.
Was not to take any of the parties by surprise nor it was going to change the evidence already recorded or to fill up the lacunas in the evidence as such the trial Court wrongly dismissed the said application of the Bank.
5. After having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the material available with this Court we observe that the original suit filed by the appellant-Bank for recovery of money against Nisar Ahmad and while the proceedings in the said civil suit were in process, the application for additional evidence was moved. The Bank through this application only wanted to produce one Javed Iftikhar as P.W. In order to prove his signatures upon the plaint. The Bank even at the time of the statement of the above said Tayyab Siddiqui had reserved the rights to produce evidence in rebuttal. The application under discussion was moved before the conclusion of the proceedings of the evidence in the case. The object of this application was not to patch up the lacunas in the evidence. The statement of Javed Iftikhar if recorded was only to facilitate the Court with regard to the appraisal of the facts requisite for the disposal of the civil suit as such the trial Court wrongly rejected this application. In view of the above discussion we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order, dated 20-12-1994 by virtue of which the application for additional evidence moved by the Bank was rejected. We also set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court and remand this case to the trial Court with the direction to allow the appellant- Bank to produce Javed Iftikhar as P.W. In the said civil suit and then to proceed in accordance with law.