' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---Citibank, appellant/ plaintiff, through. The filing of the present appeal, has called in question judgment and decree, dated 21-3-2002, whereby the learned Judge Banking Court, while dismissing the application for leave to defend the suit, filed by the respondent, passed a decree for the recovery of Rs,5,31,280 with costs against the respondent.
2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the decision of the present appeal are that the appellant filed a suit for the recovery of Rs,16,31,522, against the respondent, before the Banking Court, which was defended by the respondent by way of filing an application for leave to defend the suit, wherein certain legal and factual controversies were raised. However, on merits, it was, inter alia, pleaded, that the respondent had already paid a sum of Rs,15,45,500 and only an amount of Rs,99,500 remains to be paid. Ultimately the learned Banking Court, after hearing the parties, and relying upon letter, dated 14-5-2001, written by the respondent to the bank, passed a decree for the recovery of Rs,5,31,280 with costs against the respondent vide judgment and decree, dated 21-3- 2002, hence, the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that as a matter of fact suit for the recovery of Rs,16,31,522 was filed against the respondent, but the learned Banking Court has illegally passed a decree for the recovery of Rs,5,31,280 on the basis of letter, dated 14-5-2001, and, thus, the impugned decree deserves to be set aside. He has added that at best the learned Banking Court could have passed an interim decree for the recovery of the aforesaid amount and should have allowed the appellant to prove the rest of its claims.
' Conversely, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that only a sum of Rs,99,500 is outstanding against the respondent and the learned Banking Court, through the impugned judgment and decree, has erroneously dismissed the application for leave to defend the suit, filed by the respondent, and passed a decree for the recovery of Rs,5,31,280, hence, the same is not sustainable in law.
4. It is evident from the respective contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, as noted above, that both of them are not satisfied by the passing of the impugned judgment and decree. After arguing the matter at some length, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that he has no objection to the setting aside of the impugned judgment and decree provided the case may be remanded to the learned Banking Court for its decision afresh. The learned counsel for the appellant has no objection to this course of action, as the appellant is also aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree and that is the reason why he has assailed the said judgment and decree.
5. In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree, dated 21-3-2002, passed by the learned Judge Banking Court, is set aside with no order as to costs. The result would be that the application for leave to defend the suit, filed by the respondent, stands accepted and the suit, filed by the appellant, titled Citibank v.
Lt.-Col. Anwar-ul-Haq, shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Banking Court-I, Lahore, who shall decide the suit after framing of the issues and recording the evidence of the parties in accordance with law within a period of two months from the receipt of this order.
' Office is directed to transmit the record to the learned Banking Court immediately.