2005 PLP 398 (CLD)

‑‑‑‑Sketchy and slip‑shod judgment‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Judgment, which was sketchy, slip‑shod and devoid of reasons would not at all be a speaking judgment and could not be called a judicial order" within parameters set up by law‑‑‑Passing of perfunctory order was disapproved‑‑‑Such judgment would not be sustainable in law, thus, would be liable to be set aside. Mian Nasir Mehmood for Appellant. Nemo for Respondents. The appellant‑Bank, through the filing of the present appeal, has partly called in question judgment and decree dated 18‑2‑2002, whereby the learned Judge Banking Court passed an ex parte decree for the recovery of Rs.98,260 along with costs of funds and costs of suit, as against suit amount of Rs.3,10,507 against the respondents.

2. The facts relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that the appellant‑Bank/plaintiff, on 21‑3‑1993, filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,10,507, which was initially decreed ex parte, however, later on the ex parte decree was set aside. During the pendency of the suit some of the defendants died and their legal representatives were impleaded. No application for the grant of leave to defend was filed on behalf of any of the respondents. The learned Banking Court after proceeding ex parte against the respondents, passed a decree for the recovery of Rs.98,260 along with costs of funds and costs of the suit, against all the respondents, as against the suit amount of Rs.3,10,507, vide judgment and decree dated 18‑2‑2002, hence the present appeal.

3. Despite service of the respondents for today, none has entered appearance to oppose this appeal, hence they are proceeded ex parte.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant‑Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,10,507 against the respondents, but the learnt Banking Court, while illegally declining to award the decree of total suit amount, has passed a partial decree Rs.98,260 without any legal justification, thus, according to the learned counsel the impugned judgment and decree need modification, so as to include a further sum Rs.2,12,241.

5. Upon the examination of the available record and perusal of the impugned judgment, we find that the contention of the learned counsel has some substance. It is not discernible from the available record, that on the basis of which documents, the learned Banking Court concluded that only a sum of Rs.98,260 is outstanding against the respondents. The learned Banking Court did not even mention or refer to any of the documents in the impugned judgment, upon which it has been held that ‑‑‑ "an ex parte decree on the basis of documents present on record, is granted to the extent of Rs.98,260 along with costs at the rate of Rs.8.17%" ‑‑‑. Impugned judgment does not show that how the amount of Rs.98,260 was worked out and why the sum of Rs.2,12,241 was deducted from the suit amount, inasmuch as the statement of accounts has not been referred to. There are no findings on the crucial issue that why the appellant was not entitled to recover the total suit amount of Rs.3,10,

507. If the learned Banking Court was of the view that said amount has incorrectly been added in the suit amount or the statement of accounts is not reliable, then, at least there should have been some reasons and finding for deducting the said amount from the suit amount. We see that there is a complete black out in this regard in the judgment. The learned Banking Court in complete oblivion of the facts of the case and law on the subject, has erroneously held that on the basis of documents, an ex parte decree for Rs.98,260 is granted.

6. There is another aspect of the case. The impugned judgment, passed by the learned Banking Court, is sketchy, slip‑shod and devoid of reasons. The said judgment is not at all a speaking judgment and cannot be called a "judicial order" within the parameter set up by law. The tenor of the impugned judgment amply manifests non‑application of judicial mind, inasmuch as no reasons have been assigned by the learned Judge Banking Court, while coming to the abrupt conclusion that an ex parte decree on the basis of documents, present on record, is granted to the extent of Rs.98,

260. Even it has been enjoined upon an executive authority, as per section 24(A) of General Clauses Act, 1897 (Inserted by General Clauses (Amendment Act, 1997, Act No‑XI of 1897) to give reasons for making the order. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has time and again disapproved the passing of such perfunctory order. In nutshell, the impugned judgment, which is not a speaking order and devoid of reasons, is not sustainable in law thus we have no hesitation in setting aside the same.

7. Upshot of the above discussion is that the present appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 18‑2‑2002 is set aside with no order as to costs. Result would be that the suit titled A.D.B.P. v. Muhammad Munir Lodhi and others shall deem to be pending before the learned Judge Banking Court No.1, Faisalabad, who shall decide the same afresh in accordance with law. S.A.K./A‑1016/L Appeal accepted.