Law: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans), Ordinance, 1979

Section: 6

Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)--- S. 6(4) --- Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0. VII, R. 10 & 0. XXXIX, Rr. I & 2 ---Suit for recovery of loan filed by the bank against debtor in Civil Court ---Maintainability --- Ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court --- Debtor filed suit for rendition of accounts against bank wherein he obtained stay order restraining the bank from recovering loan from him --- Validity --- Provisions of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance having been made applicable to bank in pursuance of Notification dated 1-10-1992 suit filed by a "borrower" was, thus exclusively entertainable and triable by Special Court (Banking) constituted under Ordinance XIX of 1979 --- Civil Court was left with no jurisdiction to try the suit in question --- Suit had been filed in Civil Court on 15-4-1992 and stay order had been granted on 29-9-1992 --- Ordinance XIX of 1979 had been made applicable' to the bank in question from 4-10-1979- - Suit in question, as also application for grant of stay order were thus, not triable by Civil Court- --Stay order granted by Court below had thus, to be vacated --- Debtor even on factual plane, had no case for grant of stay order for no irreparable loss would be suffered by him in case amount of loan was recovered from him --- Stay order which is a discretionary relief, could not be granted for the interest of an individual as against the interest of public-at large; if recovery of loans were stayed, banks would not possibly function and, thus, public interest would also suffer -- - Suit for recovery of loan being exclusively triable by Special Court (Banking), Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit --- Plaint was returned for presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Nabeel Sarwar for Appellant. Asif Jan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 21st February, 1993. JUDGMENT   This judgment will dispose of FA.Os. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of 1993 imasmuch as identical questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. 2. The appellant which is a banking company has initiated proceedings for recovery of loan against the respondent under the…