Mian AMIR SALEEM vs STANDARD CHARTERED GRINDLAYS BAN (FORMER ANZ
The appellant filed a suit for rendition of accounts and recovery of damages against the respondent-Bank. The respondent-Bank filed an application for leave to appear and defend the suit. The Banking Court dismissed the appellant's suit without first adjudicating upon the respondent's pending application for leave to defend. The appellant challenged this dismissal, arguing that the court could not summarily dismiss the suit without deciding the leave application. The Lahore High Court held that the Banking Court erred in dismissing the suit summarily. The Court affirmed the principle that a Banking Court must decide an application for leave to appear and defend on its own merits before proceeding to adjudicate the suit itself. Furthermore, the Court noted that the plaint disclosed a triable issue. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment, remanded the matter, and directed the Banking Court to decide both the suit and the pending leave application in accordance with the law, specifically noting the violation of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001.
- Can a Banking Court dismiss a suit without first deciding the application for leave to appear and defend?
- Does the failure to decide a leave to defend application violate the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001?
- Is a summary dismissal of a suit appropriate when the plaint discloses a triable issue?
- Section 10, Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001
ORDER
' The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit on 11-7-2003 for rendition of accounts and for recovery of Rs,45 Million as damages. The respondent-Bank filed an application for leave to appear and defend the suit on 22-8-2003. Reply to the same was filed by the plaintiff/appellant on 30-3-2004. The learned Judge Banking Court vide judgment dated 9-9-2005 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the suit of the appellant could not be dismissed summarily. No order was passed on the leave application filed by the respondent-Bank.
Further urged that without deciding the same, the suit of the plaintiff/appellant could not be dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent referred to two letters stating that the plaintiff/appellant has admitted his liability as such the suit was rightly dismissed.
4. We have gone through the impugned judgments, perused the record and considered the arguments propounded by the learned counsel for the parties. The suit of the plaintiff/appellant for rendition of accounts and for recovery, of damages has been summarily dismissed. It is well- established that without deciding the application for leave to appear and defend the suit on its own merits, the learned Judge Banking Court could not, embark upon the suit and dismiss the same. Even otherwise, the contents of the plaint do disclose a triable issue. The impugned judgment is violative of provision of section 10 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances)
Ordinance, 2001.
5. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed, and the impugned judgment dated 9-9-2005 passed by the learned Judge Banking Court No,2 Gujranwala, is set aside. Resultantly, the suit of.
The plaintiff/appellant and the application for leave to appear and defend the suit filed by the respondent-Bank shall be deemed to be pending which shall be decided by the learned Judge Banking Court in accordance with law.