2003 PLP 592 (CLD)

Iftikhar Ullah Malik for Respondent. Date of hearing: 3rd December, 2002. MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.‑‑‑Instant single judgment shall decide the present appeal (R.F.A: No. 305 of 2001) and the connected two appeals (R.F.A. No. 306 of 2001 and R.F.A. No. 307 of 2001), as common questions of law and facts are involved in all the appeals and they have arisen out of identical judgments.

2. Through the filing of these appeals, under section 21 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, the appellants have called in question judgments and decrees, dated 10‑5‑2000, whereby the learned Judge Banking Court, passed decrees for various amounts in favour of the respondent‑Bank and against the appellants.

3. Precisely stated, the facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeals are that the respondent‑Bank filed three different suits for the recovery of Rs.6.7 million, Rs.6.44 million and Rs.6.8 million, against Messrs. Pakistan Agro Power (Pvt.) Ltd., Messrs Zerkhaiz Agro Engineering and Services (Pvt.) Ltd. and Messrs Zaraee Services (Pvt.) Ltd., respectively, before the learned Judge Banking Court, wherein, the appellant No. 1 was arrayed as principal debtor and the rest of the appellants were joined as mortgagors/guarantors. Pursuant to the issuance of summons, as prescribed under the law, the appellants filed replies to the show‑cause notices, which were subsequently, treated as applications for leave to defend the suit with the change in law, thereby raising different pleas, however, the learned Judge Banking Court, after finding that the appellants have failed to make out any arguable case for the grant of leave to defend the suit dismissed all the applications, for" leave to appear and defend the suits, through different orders. Subsequently. after recording the ex parte evidence, the learned Judge Banking Court, decreed the suits for the amount of Rs.66,991,92 against Messrs Pakistan Agro Power (Pvt.) Ltd., Rs. 64,44,534 against Messrs Zerkhaiz Agra Engineering and Services (Pvt.) Ltd. and Rs. 68,42,661 against Messrs Zaraee Services (Pvt.) Ltd., vide separate judgments , and decrees, dated 10‑5‑2000, hence the present appeals.

4. Learned counsel, while relying upon judgment rendered by this Court in R:F.A. No. 500 of 2001, has submitted that although various pleas were raised in the applications for leave to defend the suits, yet the learned Judge Banking Court, did not decide the same inasmuch as the same have not even been incorporated in the impugned orders. He has further added that the impugned judgments are devoid of reasons and thus not sustainable On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Bank has tried to defend the impugned judgments by submitting that the same was passed after recording the ex parte evidence.

5. With the assistance of both the learned counsel, we have perused the orders, whereby the leave applications, filed by the appellants, were dismissed and also the final' judgments, dated 10‑5‑2000. We find that the learned Judge Banking Court, while deciding the leave applications, comprehensively failed to attend to the controversies between the parties as raised in the leave applications and replies filed by the respondent‑Bank. As a matter of fact the learned Court failed to give any findings on any of the issues/points raised by the parties We have noticed that the orders, refusing to grant leave to defend and also the impugned judgments, are sketchy, non speaking and cannot be called a "judicial judgment" within the parameters set up by law. No points of controversies were determined and no reasons have been assigned by the learned Judge Banking Court, in coming to the conclusions that how and why the appellants are not entitled for the grant of leave to defend the suits.

6. So far as, the reliance, upon the judgment passed in R.F.A. No. 500 of 2001, by the learned counsel for the appellants. We have examined the same and find that this Court has held that it has even been enjoined upon an executive authority, as per section 24(A? of the General Clauses Act, 1897, (inserted by General Clauses (Amendment) Act. 1997 (XI of 1997) to give reasons for making the order. This Court in the said judgment, while relying upon different judgments passed by the apex Court of this country, has further held that a judgment which is not a speaking judgment and devoid of reasons, is not sustainable in law being in contravention of law declared by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

7. In the above perspective, when the learned counsel was asked to explain as to how orders, dismissing the applications for the grant of leave to defend the suits and consequently final judgments, are sustainable in law, he has not much to say and agreed for the remand of the case.

8. In view of the above discussion and the consenses of the learned counsel, all the appeals are accepted, the impugned judgments and decrees, dated 10‑5‑2000 and the orders, declining leave to defend the suit to the appellant, are set aside with no order as to costs. The result would be that all the applications, for the leave to C defend the suits, filed by the appellants, shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Judge Banking Court No. IV, who is directed to decide the said applications, after hearing the parties and of course in accordance with law, within a period of one month from 13‑12‑2002, on which date the parties are directed to appear before the said learner Court. M.B.A. /P‑118/L Appeals accepted.