1. ' MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI, J.---The appellants filed appeal under section 21 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) against the order passed by Banking Court No,1, whereby the learned Banking Court dismissed the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as section 10 of the said Act, refusing to grant leave to defend the suit.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-Bank filed suit for recovery of outstanding dues against the appellants in Banking Court No,
1. After service of the summons, as prescribed under Act XV of 1997, the appellants filed an application under section 10 of the said Act alongwith an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking permission to defend the suit and also for condonation of delay in filing the application for leave to defend. The learned Banking Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, vide his order dated 26-6-2000, dismissed both the applications holding that the appellants failed to make out any case for leave to defend as well as for condonation of delay in filing the application. Through this appeal, the appellants have assailed the said order.
3. ' Heard Messrs Amir Malik and Qazi Abdul Hameed Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellants.
4. ' The learned counsel argued that appellant has shown sufficient reasons for condonation of delay in filing the leave to defend application and further that the appellants made out a case for grant of leave to defend, but the learned Banking Court failed to take in consideration material placed before the Court and refused to grant application for leave to defend as well as refused to condone the delay.
5. ' We have gone through the record before us and it appears that the appeal has been filed against an interlocutory order refusing to grant leave, to defend. An appeal under section 21 of the said Act is maintainable only against a decree or an order refusing to set aside the decree or an order permitting or preventing the sale of the property or a sentence passed by the .Banking Court. The present appeal is filed against an interlocutory order and not against the final judgment and decree passed by the Banking Court. The appeal, on the face of it, is not maintainable and as such the same is dismissed in limine.
6. ' We would also like to mention here that even otherwise the present appeal is filed with a delay of 39 days and no sufficient cause has been given to condone the same. The appellants received the copy of order on 4-8-2000, although applied for the same on 28-7-2000, i.e. After expiry of the period meant for filing the appeal, but even after receiving the certified copy on 4-8-2000, the present appeal was filed on 24-8-2000, i.e. Almost after 20 days of receiving the certified copy and no explanation has been furnished by the appellants for not filing the appeal immediately after receiving the certified copy of order.
7. ' The above are the detailed reasons for our short order dated 22-4-2003, whereby the appeal was dismissed.