2002 PLP 397 (CLD)

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th October, 2001. Through the filing of this Constitutional petition, the petitioner has challenged the ex parte decree dated 19‑4‑1999 and the order dated 18‑5‑2000, passed by the learned Judge, Banking Court No.II, Gujranwala, with a prayer that the same may be declared as illegal and without lawful authority.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Constitutional petition are that the respondent‑Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 59,969 against the petitioner and respondent No.3; the suit was contested by the petitioner by way of filing the written statement, the issues were also framed and the parties were put to evidence. In the meantime, the case was transferred to the Special Judge Banking, Lahore, by operation of law and then to Banking Court, Gujranwala. Ultimately on 19‑4‑1999, an ex parte decree was passed against the petitioner and respondent No‑

3. The petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree, which is still reportedly pending. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 issued warrants of arrest of the petitioner, on 18‑5‑2000, hence, the present writ petition challenging the said order and the decree.

3. Nobody has entered appearance on behalf of respondents Nos.2 and 3, thus, they are proceeded ex parte.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that an application fled by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 19‑4‑1999, is still pending before the learned Banking Court and without deciding the same, the Banking Court has issued the warrants of arrest of the judgment- debtors.

5. Admittedly, an ex parte decree was passed against respondent No.3 and the petitioner by the Banking Court vide judgment and decree dated 19‑4‑1999, which is still operative and the petitioner has fled an application for setting aside the aforenoted ex parte decree, which according to the learned counsel has not yet been decided. It is, however, not understandable that why the said application is still pending on the file of the learned Banking Court and has not been decided one way or the other. The learned Banking Court was under an obligation to dispose of the application fled for setting aside the ex parte decree irrespective of its result. It is, however, not discernible from the record that what was the reason for not deciding the said application, which was reportedly fled as far back as on 29‑4‑2000. The learned counsel is right while submitting that respondent No. 1 was under a legal obligation to decide that application, so that if the application is decided against him, he could avail his other remedies before the higher forum.

6. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with the directions to respondent No. 1 to decide the application fled by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 19‑4‑1999, within a period of one month from the receipt of this order and also to intimate its result to this Court through Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. There is no order as to costs.

7. Office is directed to transmit the copies of this order to respondents Nos. 1 and

2. S.A.K./A‑331/L Order accordingly.