' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, the appellant, through the filing of the instant appeal under section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 (since repealed), has called in question judgment and decree dated 12-11-1995, whereby the then Banking Tribunal, after finding that the respondents had already deposited a sum of Rs.3,09,326 as against the payable amount of Rs.2,71,806.50, held that the plaintiff's suit stands fully adjusted under Prime Minister Package Scheme and also allowed the costs of the suit.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant/ plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.3,66,946 against the respondents, before the then Banking Tribunal (since defunct). Initially an ex parte decree was passed, however, on an application, filed by the respondents, the same was set aside. The respondents, then, submitted reply to the show- cause notice, wherein availing of loan facility was admitted, however, they pleaded that they have liquidated the loan liability in terms of the Prime Minister Package Scheme, therefore, the suit be dismissed.
3. After hearing the parties, the learned Banking Tribunal, after finding that the respondents had already deposited an amount of Rs.3,09,326, against the outstanding liability of Rs.2,71,806.50, disposed of the suit, however, awarded the costs of the suit to the appellant, vide judgment and decree dated 12-11-1995, hence, the present appeal.
4. Despite notices issued to the respondents for today, none has entered appearance to represent the respondents, thus, they are proceeded ex parte.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law as the same has been rendered in complete oblivion of the facts of the case and the law on the subject.
6. Upon the examination of the impugned judgment and the available record, we find that in view of the pleadings of the parties and after taking into consideration the payments made by the respondents to the appellant-Bank, the learned Banking Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.2,71,806.50 and that the respondents have already deposited a sum of Rs.3,09,326. Although the appellant was duly represented before the learned Banking Tribunal, yet no objection to the said amounts was raised by the appellant-Bank, meaning thereby that the said amounts were deemed to be admitted by them. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any grave legal infirmity in the impugned judgment so as to unsettle the well-reasoned judgment. The respondents rightly pleaded that they have liquidated the outstanding loan liability under the Prime Minister's Package Scheme. We are of the firm view that the learned Banking Tribunal did not commit any illegality in passing the impugned judgment.
We are not persuaded to differ from the findings rendered in the impugned judgment, which are not only in accordance with the record of the case, but also in consonance with the law on the subject.
7. In the above perspective, we find that the present appeal is devoid of merits, thus, the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs.