' CH. IJAZ AHMAD.J.---The brief facts out of which the present appeal arises are that the respondents secured loan from the appellants. An agreement was also executed between the parties. According to the terms and conditions of the agreement the respondents had to pay the loan to the appellant in easy instalments. The respondents failed to discharge their liabilities in terms of the agreement. The appellant filed a suit for recovery amounting to Rs.2;602,939 before the Banking Tribunal, Faisalabad on 15-9-1993. Learned Banking Tribunal sent notice to the respondents who ' submitted reply of the same. Learned Banking Tribunal decreed the suit vide impugned judgment and decree dated 5-1-1995 but did not allow the liquidated damages and other charges. The appellant being aggrieved filed this appeal.
2. Learned counsel of the appellant submits that learned Banking Tribunal erred in law not to grant liquidated damages and other charges to the appellant in violation of mandatory provisions of law and in violation of agreement executed between the parties.
3. Learned counsel of the respondents submits that appellant did not send notice to the respondents in terms of the agreement and under the provisions of the law and notice was not received by the respondents. Learned Banking Tribunal after proper appreciation of the material had given finding against the appellant. Learned counsel of the appellant failed to point out any piece of material which was misread by the learned Banking Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel of the appellant in rebuttal submits that two applications are pending adjudication before the executing Court; one filed by the appellant and the other filed by the respondents. Learned Banking Tribunal, Faisalabad be directed to decide the same expeditiously.
5. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
6. It is admitted fact that appellant failed to produce sufficient material on record before the Banking Tribunal that the notice was received by the respondents. In absence of the proof of receiving the notice by the respondents which is mandatory in nature for the grant of liquidated damages and other charges the learned Banking Tribunal had given finding of fact after proper appreciation of the material before it and had given finding that appellant failed to establish and bring on record any proof of receipt of notice by the respondents in terms of the agreement and under the provisions of law. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of the learned Banking Tribunal.
' In view of what has been discussed above, this appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed.
However, learned executing Court is directed to decide the applications of the parties as expeditiously as possible.