' The appellants/judgment-debtors, through the filing of this first appeal, has called' in question judgment and decree dated 8-2-1999, whereby, the learned Judge Banking Court passed a decree for the recovery of Rs,2,30,40,356.69 against the appellants and favouring the respondent-Bank.
'2. Facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that, on 14-5-1998, the respondent-Bank, through its duly authorized principal officer, filed a suit for recovery of Rs,2,30,40,356.69, against appellants before Judge Banking Court and pursuant to the issuance of summons, as required under the law, the appellants filed an application for leave to defend the suit, thereby taking certain legal objections. However, the learned Banking Court, after hearing the parties, and after finding that no serious bona fide questions of law and facts were raised by the appellants, dismissed their application for leave to defend the suit and consequently passed a decree for the recovery of Rs,2,30,40,356.69 with costs against all the appellants, jointly and severally, vide judgment and decree dated 8-2-1999, hence the present appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that although it was directed by this Court, while passing an order in a Constitutional petition, that the suit, out of which the present appeal has arisen, shall be heard and decided alongwith other two suits, filed by the appellant No,2, yet the learned Banking Court did not comply with the terms of the said order, inasmuch as this suit was decided independent of those two suits, thus according to the learned counsel, the judgment and decree under appeal is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside. Converely the learned counsel representing the respondent-Bank has refuted the said contention and submitted that no such order was passed by this Court.
4. In view of the solitary contentions raised by the learned counsel, we have examined' the order dated 2-12-1998, passed by this Court, whereby two Constitutional petitions (W.P. No, 16067 of 1998) and Writ Petition No,16068 of 1998 filed by the appellant No,2 and one Muhammad Tahir, against the respondent-Bank were decided. The facts of those petitions were that the appellant No,2 and another filed two suits for redumption of mortgage as well as for recovery of some amount as damages against the respondent-Bank, wherein plaints were returned under Order VIII, rule 10, C.P.C, by the then learned Judge Banking Court vide order dated 29-6-1998, which order was assailed in those petitions. This Court, while accepting those petitions, held that the aforenoted suits are exclusively triable by the Banking Court, thus the orders passed by the Banking Court for the return of the plaints, were set aside and the cases were remanded to the learned Judge Banking Court for their decision. For facility of reference the operative portion of the orders in the aforenoted petitions is reproduced below:-- "For the above reasons, these two petitions are allowed with costs and the impugned order in each of the same is hereby declared to have been passed without lawful authority and consequently of no legal effect. The result is that the suits brought by the petitioners shall be deemed to be pending with respondent No,2 and will not be proceeded with and decided in accordance with law."
5. Upon the examination of the judgment, rendered by this Court, in the aforesaid petitions, we find that it was held that the suits filed by the appellant No,2 shall deem to be pending before Banking Court and decided in accordance with law. It is evident therefrom that at no stage, this Court directed, as erroneously convassed by the learned counsel of the appellants, that those suits would be decided alongwith the suit, wherefrom the instant appeal has arisen. We do not find any order on record, either passed by the learned Banking Court, at any point of time or by this Court in those writ petitions, that the suits filed by appellant No,2 and another were consolidated with the suit filed by the respondent-Bank. Even otherwise learned counsel for the appellants has admitted that no consolidation order was passed by any Court at any stage and that he is only relying upon the said judgment passed by this Court. After having an indepth study of the aforenoted judgment, passed in writ petitions, we are of the considered view that this Court never directed the learned Banking Court either to hear the suits filed by the appellant No, 2 alongwith the suit filed by respondent- Bank or the proceedings were consolidated by any Court. In view of this, the solitary argument raised by the learned counsel is unfounded, misdirected and is hereby repelled.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that even the two suits, mentioned by the learned counsel, have since been dismissed by the learned Banking Court and that the appellants did not file any appeal against the said judgments and thus they have attained finality.
The learned counsel for the appellant although admitted the dismissal of those suits, yet he is not aware about the non-filing of the appeals. Even on this Court too, this appeal cannot succeed.
7. Apart from the above contention, learned counsel has neither addressed any argument nor raised any objections to the passing of the impugned judgment and decree, thus the same shall , be deemed to be admitted. Even otherwise we have examined the impugned judgment and find that the same has been passed in consonance with law, inasmuch as the learned Banking Court dealt with every ground taken by the appellant and has decided the same in accordance with law.
The impugned judgment is legal, apt to the facts and circumstances of the case, un-exceptionable and the same does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
We are inclined to maintain the findings rendered by the learned Judge Banking Court.
' Upshot of the above discussion is that the present appeal is devoid of any merits, thus the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.