Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 4425 2025 SLD 4425 = 2025 CLC 1552
Sindh High Court
Ist Appeal No. 103 of 2018, decided on 26th February, 2025.
Before Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro and Muhammad Osman Ali Hadi, JJ
Abdul Shakoor and Fahad Ali for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondents

MUHAMMAD ANIS ---Appellant

VERSUS

Messrs PAK GULF LEASING COMPANY LIMITED and 2 others --Respondents

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 151,ZLI,33

Law: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Section: XLVI,7(4),9

Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 42,54

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 4,8,10A,23,24,25

(a)    Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 151 & O. XLI, R. 33---Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances )Ordinance ( XLVI of 2001 ), Ss. 7(4) & 9---Specific Relief Act (I of 1897), Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration, cancellation, damages and permanent injunction--Right of party---Remedy not granted by the Court---Act(s) of the Subordinate Court(s) not granting relief / right to party---Inherent/ex delicto justitiae powers of High/Appellate Court---Scope---Owner of residential property, through original papers, furnished surety in a criminal case on behalf of two accused persons pursuant to their bail order, however, later he did not receive any final outcome on his application for release of surety, i.e. return of his original property papers--Then, owner received a notice from a non-banking finance leasing company ('Leasing Company') stating that the property was mortgaged to them and they intended to auction the same---Then the owner filed a civil suit for a declaration, etc., before the High Court in its Original Civil Jurisdiction, inter alia, seeking to restraint Leasing Company from auction / sale of the property but the Single Judge returned the plaint, with an observation to approach the court of proper jurisdiction---Then the owner approached the Banking Court and filed suit seeking redressal of his grievance, however, when the matter proceeded to the final arguments the Judge-Banking Court, while holding that the Banking Court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, returned the plaint with the direction to file the same before the (civil) court of competent jurisdiction--Owner/Appellant approached Appellate / High Court---Validity---Banking Court, undoubtedly, has authority to decide its own jurisdiction as provided in S. 7(4) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances ) Ordinance, 2001 ('the Ordinance 2001') being a special law; the jurisdiction of which (Banking Court) is only invoked when there is dispute between a financial institution and a customer, as defined under the Ordinance 2001---In the present case, it is an accepted position that the appellant does not fall into either…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register