Law:

Section:

MUHAMMAD ASADULLAH, J.--A suit for recovery of Rs.5,57,846.86 was filed by respondent No.1 against the appellants on account of overdraft facilities and loan facilities obtained by the appellants. Apart from the personal guarantees the loan was secured through mortgage of property. The appellants filed an application for leave to defend the case, which was allowed by the learned trial Court vide. order dated 17 -2-1983 subject to the condition that the appellants deposit whole of the amount in suit up to 15-9-1983. On the request of the appellants the time for deposit was extended up to 15-10-1983. No deposit within the time allowed by the learned trial Court was made by the appellants. Instead Writ Petition No.3855 of 1983 was filed by the appellants to challenge the said order dated 17-2-1983. However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 11-10-1983 of this Court. The appellants then filed Intra-Court Appeal No.218 of 1983 which was apart from other dates, taken up on 15 -10-1983 when the case was adjourned on the request of the learned counsel for the appellants as he wanted to discuss with his clients as to whether they were prepared to pay the amount and if so, how and within what period. The ICA was adjourned to 18 -10-1983. In the meantime the suit was taken up by the learned trial Court on 15 -10-1983, the date already fixed. Because of non-deposit of the amount in suits, as required by order dated 17-2-1983, a preliminary decree for the amount in suit (dated 15 -10-1983) was passed by the learned trial Court alongwith interest and costs. Thereafter, the ICA was taken up on 18-10-1983 and the learned counsel for the appellants stated that the appellants were ready and willing to deposit in Court the amount in dispute but they may be allowed three months time to sell a plot of land, owned by them, for the purpose. In view of this statement a part of impugned order dated 17-2-1983 regarding the making of the deposit was suspended. However, it was ordered that the proceedings before the trial Court are not stayed and the same shall continue meanwhile. It may be pointed out here that the fact of the passing of preliminary decree on 15-10-1983 was not…