2004 PLP 388 (CLD)

‑‑‑‑Ss.9, 10 & 22‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VIII, Rr.3 & 4‑‑‑Suit for recovery of loan amount‑‑‑Evasive denial of plea raised in leave application‑‑ Effect‑‑‑Defendant's plea was that an amount of Rs.1, 65, 000 from his account in another Branch of plaintiff‑Bank had been unauthorisedly withdrawn through bogus cheque‑‑‑Banking Court rejected application and passed decree in terms of suit ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Bank had evasively denied such plea of defendant‑‑‑If such amount had been withdrawn from another account or Branch, plaintiff‑Bank was the key respondent in such matter‑‑‑Defendant was entitled to grant of leave‑‑‑High Court partly allowed appeal, set aside impugned decree to the extent of Rs.1,65,000 and granted leave to defendant and remanded case to Banking Court for trial of issue raised by defendant. Mian Nasir Mehmood on behalf of learned Counsel for Appellants. Shuja Ahmed Baba for Respondent‑Bank. The respondent‑Bank brought a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.358,388 against the appellants. The appellants brought an application for leave to appear and defend the suit which application has been rejected by the Court below through the impugned order and the decree has been passed in terms of the suit. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants, states that a specific assertion has been made in the application that an amount of Rs.1,65,000 from the account of the appellants in Pak Block Branch, Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore, of the respondent‑Bank, has been withdrawn through bogus cheque and there is no authorization in that behalf. In reply to the relevant paragraphs no specific denial has been made by the respondent‑Bank and evasively all the paragraphs and preliminary objections Nos. 1 to 25 have been denied. Resultantly, on the basis of the quality of the pleadings, particularly, no denial in reply to the application, was made, to the extent of Rs.1,65,000, the appellant was entitled to grant leave.

2. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that as the respondent‑Bank has evasively denied the assertion made by the appellants in the application for leave to defend with regard to the unauthorized withdrawal of the amount of Rs.1,65,000 notwithstanding if this amount has been withdrawn from another account or from another branch, it is the respondent‑Bank which is the key respondent in the matter, therefore, to this extent the appellants were entitled to grant leave.

3. Resultantly, we modify the judgment and decree; by upholding the decree to the extent of the balance amount except Rs.1,65,000, the same is set aside, the appellant is granted leave qua his grievance of Rs.1,65,

000. The matter is remanded to the Banking Court for the trial of the issue as raised by the appellant for the amount of Rs.1,65,

000. Disposed of accordingly. S.A.K./M‑1722/L Case remanded.