' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---This appeal impugns the order dated 3-6-2002 passed by the learned Banking Court No,II, Gujranwala, whereby the appellant Abdul Hameed was ordered to be arrested in execution of a decree dated 29-11-2001 obtained by the respondent-Bank for recovery of a sum of Rs,1,92,481. On the first date of hearing i,e, 4-7-2002, pre-admission notice was issued to the respondent-Bank and in the meanwhile, it was ordered that the appellant should not be arrested in execution of the above-referred decree. The appellant availed the benefit of the interim relief allowed to him. The case was next fixed for hearing on 23-10-2002 on which date learned A counsel for the appellant had sought time to obtain instructions from the appellant as to the time frame within which the appellant would discharge the total decretal debt.
2. Today learned counsel for the appe4nt has stated that the appellant has not provided any time- frame to him for discharge of his liability under the decree dated B 29-11-2001. Learned counsel has further stated that the appellant has not made any contact with learned counsel despite best efforts made by the latter.
3. In the above circumstances, we are satisfied that the appellant is taking undue advantage of the interim relief allowed to him on 4-7-2002. Furthermore, we note from the order dated 23-10-2002, referred to above, that the only question before us was the time-frame within which the appellant was to discharge the decretal debt. Today learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the absence of any time-frame and the absence of instructions from the appellant, he be allowed to argue this appeal on merits. This, we are afraid, cannot be allowed keeping in view the order dated 23-10-2002. As a consequence, this appeal is dismissed.