1. ' The brief facts out of which the present appeal arises are that respondent No,1 sanctioned loan/finance facilities to respondent No,2 against the guarantees and mortgage of properties, of respondents Nos. 3 to 6 as is evident from Annexure A attached with the appeal. The agreement was also executed between the parties according to the terms and conditions of the agreement.
2. Respondent No,2 and guarantors have to pay the loan facilities to respondent No,1 in easy instalments. Respondent No,3 failed to discharge the liability in terms of the agreement.
3. Respondent No,1 filed a suit against respondents Nos.2 to 6 for recovery of the amount before the Banking Court. The said suit was decreed by the Banking Court vide judgment and decree dated 1- 2-2001 for recovery of Rs.6,84,41,715. Respondent No,1 being aggrieved filed execution application before the Banking Court. The appellants filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Before Civil Judge Ist Class, Sialkot for setting aside the decree to the extent of the appellants as respondent No,3 had secured the property by misrepresentation and playing fraud and transferred the property in his name vide judgment and decree dated 22-9-1975. In fact the property in question owned by their late father, therefore, the appellants after the death of their father have become owner of half property. The said application was accepted vide ex parte judgment dated 23-5- 2002. The appellants also filed objection petition before the Banking Court. Learned Banking Court dismissed the same vide order dated 28-1-2003. The appellants being aggrieved filed this appeal.
4. ' Learned counsel for the appellants had attached all the relevant documents with the appeal, therefore, we decide the main appeal with the concurrence of learned counsel of the appellant.
5. ' Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Banking Court erred in law to dismiss the application of the appellants vide the impugned order dated 28-1-2003. He further submits that the appellants did not give any security or surety at the time of granting loan in favour of respondent No,2 by respondent No,
1. He further submits that property of the appellants was not mortgaged with the respondent-Bank. He further submits that respondent No,3 secured a decree in his favour qua the property in question which had been left by their father by playing fraud vide judgment and decree dated 22-9-1975 whereas the said decree was set aside vide judgment dated 23-5- 2002. He further submits that the trial Court erred in law to dismiss the application without applying its independent mind.
6. ' We have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record ourselves.
7. ' It is pertinent to mention here that the appellants filed application under section 12(2), C.P.C. To set aside decree dated 22-9-1975 after 28 years. The appellants had impleaded their brother/respondent No,3, as respondent in the said application who initially entered appearance before the Court and thereafter disappeared from the scene and the said ex parte decree has been set aside vide judgment dated 22-5-2002 A whereas learned Banking Tribunal passed the decree against respondents Nos.2 to 6 in favour of respondent No,1 vide judgment and decree dated 1-2-2001. This fact alone is sufficient that the appellants secured that ex parte judgment with the connivance of respondent No,3 to frustrate the judgment and decree passed by the Banking Court. The appellants did not challenge the decree dated 22-9-1975 for the last 28 years. It is settled principle of law that application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Must have been filed within three years. Since no limitation period is specifically provided to file an B application under section 12(2), C.P.C., therefore, this will be governed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the cases reported as Tanveer Jamshed and another v. Raja Ghulam Haider 1992 SCM R 917 and Muhammad Iqbal and another v. Muhammad Alamgir and others 1990 SCM R 1377 which provides period of three years when the right to apply accrued meaning thereby the date when the judgment, decree or order was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or without jurisdiction. It is also settled principle of law that law must be on the sleeves of the Judge as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Board of Intermediate and I Secondary Education, Lahore v. Salma Afroz PLD 1992 SC 263 coupled with the fact that respondent No,3 initially entered appearance before the Court and subsequently disappeared D simply to provide opportunity to the appellants so that the decree dated 22-9-1975 would be set aside and the decree passed by the Banking Court would be frustrated. As mentioned above, the appellants secured the ex parte judgment dated 22-5-2002 with the connivance of respondent No,3 after 28 years without impleading respondent No,1 as defendant/ respondent in their application under section 12(2), C.P.C. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellants and respondent No,3 are inter se nearest relations, therefore, learned Single Judge was justified to ignore the ex parte judgment and decree dated 22-5-2002 secured by the appellants against respondent No,3, so this brings the case of the appellants that appellants filed objection petition frivolous without any basis simply to frustrate the right of the decree-holder against respondents Nos.2 to 6, therefore, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the Banking Court which is in accordance with the law laid by the superior Courts. The appeal has no merits so the same is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.