' CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.---The brief facts out of which the present appeal arises are that appellant secured loan from the respondent Institution. The appellants failed to discharge its liability in terms of the Finance Agreement. The respondent being aggrieved filed a suit for recovery in the Banking Court No.4, Lahore which was decreed in favour of the respondent. The respondent filed an execution petition against appellant. The appellant preferred an application before the Banking Court with the prayer for modification of reserve price which was reduced by the executing Court without notice to the appellant. The Banking Court issued notice to the decree-holder but did not suspend the operation of the auction proceedings because after making modification in the reserve price the auction date was fixed as 6-10-2003. The appellants being aggrieved filed this appeal.
2. Learned counsel of the appellant submits that executing Court erred in law not to pass prohibitory order in favour of the appellants and merely issued notice to the decree-holder for 8- 10-2003. He further submits that Banking Court erred in law not to grant ad interim relief to the appellants. When the learned counsel of the appellant was asked that appeal is not maintainable under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 he submits that procedure prescribed under, C.P.C. Is applicable in the proceedings before the Banking Court.
Therefore, appeal under Order XLIII, rule 1, C.P.C. Read with section 104, C.P.C. Is maintainable before this Court.
3. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel of the appellant and perused the record.
4. It is settled proposition of law that special law excludes the application of general law as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Zia-ur-Rehman's case (PLD 1973 SC 49). It is pertinent to mention here that the Legislature in its wisdom provided appeal under section 22(6) in the interest of the Financial Institutions which is reproduced hereunder to resolve the controversy qua maintainability of appeal:-- "22...............................
(6) No appeal, review or revision shall lie against and order accepting or rejecting an application for leave to defend, or any interlocutory order of the Banking Court which does not dispose of the entire case before the Banking Court other than an order passed under subsection (11) of section 15 or subsection (7) of section 19."
' Mere reading the aforesaid provision reveals that the order challenged by the appellant through this appeal does not fall under the said provision. Therefore, appeal is not maintainable. As mentioned above Order XLIII, rule 1, C.P.C. Is also not applicable. In arriving to this conclusion we are fortified by the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- ' Malik Israr Salim v. Citibank NA (2003 CLD 588 (Lahore), ' M/s. Huffaz Seamlen Pipe Industries v. M/s. Security Leasing (2002 SCM R 1419).
' Even otherwise the matter has to be finally decided by the Banking Court. Therefore, appeal is not maintainable.
' In view of what has been discussed above, this appeal is not maintainable. The same is dismissed.