2005 PLP 1471 (CLD)

MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.

Appellant, through the filing of the present first appeal, has called in question judgment dated 7-5-2001, whereby the learned Banking Court rejected the plaint in appellant's suit for rendition of accounts.

2. Precisely stated, the facts of the case are that on account of certain acts and omissions, reportedly, committed by the respondent-Corporation, the appellant, on 11-11-1999, filed the suit for rendition of accounts before the Banking Court. Pursuant to the issuance of summons by the Banking Court, the respondent-Corporation filed an application for the grant of leave to defend, which was allowed by the Banking Court, vide order dated 21-10-2000. The respondent-Corporation then filed the written statement, which was succeeded by an application, under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. The respondent-Corporation filed the statement of accounts, under the direction of the learned Banking Court, which after recording better statement of the appellant, on 3-2-2001, and without undertaking any further proceedings in the suit, rejected the plaint vide the impugned judgment dated 7-5-2001, hence the present appeal.

3. Despite publication of name of the learned counsel for the respondent-corporation in today's cause list, none has entered appearance to defend this appeal, hence the respondent-corporation is proceeded ex parte.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Banking Court, after grant of leave to defend to the respondent-corporation, instead of proceeding with the suit in f accordance with law has illegally rejected the plaint only after recording the better statement of the appellant, thus, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law.

5. Upon the examination of the summoned record, we find that the respondent-corporation was allowed to defend the suit, it filed written statement and thereafter the learned Banking Court, instead of framing issues and deciding the suit in accordance with law, called upon the respondent to submit the statement of accounts and it only after recording better statement of the appellant proceeded to reject the plaint, which course of action, to say the least, cannot be countenanced under any stretch of imagination. After filing of the written statement, the learned Banking Court ought to have framed the issues and called upon the parties to produce evidence in support of their respective claims. Obviously the learned Banking Court has deviated from the procedure, provided under the law, short circuited the matter and non-suited the appellant in complete oblivion of the law on the subject. hnpugned judgment is contrary to the principles of law laid down in the case of Lt. Col. (Retd.) Mahmood Akhtar v. Bank of Punjab through Manager 2004 CLD 821, which judgment is completely applicable to the facts of the case.

6. In the above perspective, we have examined the impugned judgment and find that same is violative of the law on the subject and thus, we are inclined to set aside the same, which we hereby do. Upshot of the above discussion is, that the present appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 7-5-2001, is set aside with no order as to costs. Resultantly, the appellant's suit for rendition of accounts (titled Shabbir Ahmad Malik v. Small Business Finance Corporation) shall be deemed to be pending before the Banking Court, who shall decide the same, afresh, after framing the issues and recording the evidence of the parties and, of course, in accordance with law. S.A.K./S-350/L Appeal accepted.