' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The respondents were ordered to be served through citation in the daily Nawa-e-Waqt for today. This has been done. None has appeared for the respondents. They are, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.
2. This appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 2-2-1999 passed by the learned Banking Court No,V, Lahore. The appellant-Bank filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs,39,487.20 against the respondents/defendants. The said suit was resisted on merits and also on the ground that it was time-barred.
3. The respondents/defendants were maintaining an account with the appellant-Bank. It is the case of the appellant Bank that the aforesaid amount was inadvertently credited to the said account which was withdrawn by the respondents in 1977. The suit, in the present case, was filed on 11-11-1981. As such, the suit was filed clearly beyond the period of limitation.
4. Before the learned Banking Court and also before us today it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the period of limitation did not run against the appellant on account of the provisions contained in section 18 of the Limitation Act. This argument of learned counsel for the appellant is wholly misconceived. Section 18 of the Limitation Act is only applicable where a person having a right to file a suit, has been kept from the knowledge of such right by means of fraud committed on him by the other side.
5. In the present case, it is obvious that the respondents/.Defendants did not commit any fraud nor did they commit any act to prevent the appellant/Bank from acquiring knowledge of its rights. In fact, in response to a specific question, learned counsel for the appellant conceded that the Bank itself had committed a mistake while crediting the account of the respondents and that such mistake had been detected on a later date pursuant to an audit of the accounts of the appellant- Bank. It is thus clear, firstly, that the mistake, if any, was entirely on the part of the appellant-Bank and was not induced by any act of deceit or fraud on the part of the C respondents. Secondly, it is evident that the Bank had the means of detecting its mistake and, in fact, such mistake was detected through an audit of the account of the Bank. In these circumstances, section 18 of the Limitation Act has no application.
6. No other argument was advanced by learned counsel for the appellant to dislodge the finding of the learned Banking Court that the suit filed by the appellant-Bank was time-barred. In these circumstances, we find that this appeal is without merit. It is, therefore, dismissed.